High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25295/2022dismissed

Ranjit Singh Poohla v. Union Of India And Others

2022-11-09Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj36 pages

"#$$

' % (#) &( $ %* %$

$ ++++

! "!#$ %&' # "#(

%)* " $ + + "

%,&' ---- * %$

, $- &.

. $ + # !#

! / (0! 1"! / #( 23 &4 %"( 5455/ #"+0 "/ # /# 0"( " + / "

""#0 "$ $" 0$ /67 %/ . 8 $ $ "# (0 " " / "# //

. " $ $ 97 %/ / ( # "0. . # / / %/ $/ #" # %/ + : #/ # %//#( # 0 $ 0 #" # . %// #$0 " "0 0( (0$ # 0 . "$ "23;#.#( ." "(0 # </ " " = / .

0 " $ "( " / " . :#! %/ ($ .# ( 0// 0$/ +/ 7$"$ / 6.# (8" $ (0.

( / ( # + " $ " 0 >" # 0 / 0 "# 0 # " " ( (0 # #

?% =%'6$@ "# (# 8

: ( " / %/ / #(/ 0$#(/ 0# %/

+ /" "+0 # # "/ %/ /$/ "(0" % " ( %&'

# " #(

( %)*

" $ + +

" ( %, &'

. # // (0 " 0/A#

0 / 0 0 0 /#" ( " 7 /#"$ $#0 "$ !# "0 /# %/

/ / + / 0 / 0 %/ $# ( #/ / + : $ /B

/# 0 ( / + /(/7

# "A# "(( # " .

"0 / 0 " (0 " # 9 2" "( 0 / 37 (0 #"/ " #" 0 $ (0 . # %/ !""#0 7 # /#"/ / . "(# / / #""# 0

:++0"0 # <$ ":#(" (/> >+ /" / (/ 0 / / # " $ / (0 ! 1" ! 7/!# #/" "

!" ## $% $ " 0 # +0 " > + "0 ""( #

#/ ( (0 1" !

> #/" 7/ !# # ($

!" #### #### #### $

% &

'( )

*!+ #### #### #### + ,

'-./ 0

0 3*-./

4 /!# %&' #/! 1"! $ /#

% :%959*9545&9 $ / " 454*545& : " # : # 0 " 0 / 0 C " 0 ( 7 # $ / $

% / (0! 1"! # ""( + /$$$ $ +"$ 0> ( 0# $ $ (0#( > ":

! 1" ! #0 +

/# ( # !"/ &D)5 /# " # # / "

/0 $0#

#/( $#0 /" $0 / "#/(0 !# /( ( "(0 ( 0

/ / (0 ! 1" ! 7 $ !"/ &D)5!"/ 6! 8 # &D,E/# " #( >( (0 ". !"/ &D)5 > # &

'( ) -3/ 0

2 2

! -/

2 5 &

* 6

78 -/

7 9-/

78 9-/

78 -/

2 -./:

-/ -/ -!

/ -/ - /8 !

-3/

#+ , -3/ ( '

6 1

)

-./

- -;/ '

' -/

9-3/

2 2

' !! -/

-3/ !

-3/

<=<

<=0<

7 -/

2 2

<0<

<,<

-/ -/8

-./0

-;/ ,)

/"# ,/ -3/ 0

< ,

-./ ,)

-3/

2 ! ### ### ### ### !? ### ### ### ### !??### ### ### ### !@,

-3/: !

-./

+ 1 A

! -/

$ -/ 2

& -./B !

-3/

1 6

-;/:

-/ ?

4 1# > # E5 EE !"/ 6! 8 #&D,E # # & 0( # -3/ B

' 1 -./ 1

2 -

-;/ !

2 6

C A

2 -/

-+/

" -3/ B

' ( ,

, '

-./ ( ! -3/

C A

2 &

C A

$ -;/ @2

! -./ <9 8 0 &

& 2

0 & -/ & 2

-/ B

! 2

4 1# F/# " #( >(G # ($ &$

!1 + 2 ! " ) -/

7 -/ - / ################

3 "" !

+ !1 +4 .

# " -/ !

) 7 -/

! -/

)

7 -/

7 - /

7 -/

) 7 -/

)

7 9-!/

)

78 -/

7 -/

7 -2/

$ -2/

7 -2/

) 7 -2/ ,

7 -2/ 7 -2/

'( !,

<7 -2/ :

@ : -&

= /0

3*D-3. 3*D/ " &D !# : &$ / /#/ #

-3/ 0 > -/

7 -!/#### #### #### #### -./ : -/ - 3 /

2 ,

-;/ -+/ #### #### #### ####4 :(0 # ""#0 %/ / + /7 # /# "( (/ " " " "0 (0 # " 2:$ + 3("( "

"" 7 "(0 0 ( /(0 /

#"$ / B:# ## $ $# ("(/ #" $ /

# 7 # ( C" $" 0/0# /# " . Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indibily Creative Private Ltd. and others Vs. Government of West Bengal reported as (2020) 12 SCC 436. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinafter below: '

' =0

2 ' ( 3* : .D3$ &

$% 3( .D3*(

A 33 ( .D3*

*$;D".D*$.

? ' ,

= E &

3. ( .D3*

, ? ' F &

/ ,

' E

)

4 4 :

I3* ############ .D

J 5

H K

.3!.+ ######### ##### ." 0

C J,

% 5

1 4

$- ;D 5 0/1 + 6/1+ 0 ? '

% L

A A1

;D3F ,

!F '

5 <3B 6

M )

0 3*-./

< ;D.

5 <.

) )

2 <

$ ;D;

0 3*-./5 <; (

0 3*-3/-/

0 3*-./

)

< ;3!;#### #### ####

3*.,

!0!'

2 ,!

-3/ ,

2 0

)

+ B

-C /0

3*8

)

' >

)

= 2

6 , 6

$ " &

> &

(

)

1 A *

< <

B )

* 0

@'(

2 !

33!.!.D3* F &

:A#

! > D

0 3* 0 3

< <

= ,

B 2

6 A

)

< <

(

4 Further reference is made to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2018) 17 SCC 516, which related to the release of Hindi Movie namely 'Aiyaary'. Reference is made to paragraph No.3 thereof, which reads thus:

"3. It is not in dispute that the film Aryaary has already been given the requisite certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (for short "CBFC") under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for brevity "the Act") and the said Board has also taken the suggestions from the competent authorities of the Army as a measure of caution. There can be no shadow of doubt that the Censor Board can grant a certificate and in the said decisionmaking process, it can also consult the persons who can assist it to arrive at the condign conclusion. We do not intend to name the number of authorities which have been referred to in the pleadings."

He also drew reference to the interim order passed in the matter of Viocom 18 Media Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India and other

reported as (2018) 1 SCC 761, pertaining to the release of Hindi Movie 'Padamwati/Padmawat'. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinafter below:

"3(

0 3*-3/ :

!' 0

1 1 A

' '

2 ,

." ) & F &

'( (

1 5 <.

)

' ( I O O O O -/

O O O O -2/

7 O O O O -2/ 7< Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of in the matter of Sant Eshar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2002) 2 RCR (Civil) 406. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereinafter below:

3! #### #### #### + (

' L F F , 0

(

, 0

E <

!<@

2@6

, ?

0 P

E % 1

( 3"*;

B( P - @/

* B

<( ? & J!0

> <

"!* #### #### #### 3D

0 2 &* <

3*"

, ,

-/ 0

3*.

33!3 #### #### #### 3+

& ,

0 3* . .+.*

;

)

B B

6 4 By placing reliance upon the above, it is strenuously argued that the creative expression by an artist/writer or a movie/film producer cannot be left to the whims of an individual who claims that his sentimentalities or emotions are being adversely affected. Non-acceptance of views/expressions or portrayal by another person cannot be the basis for denying exhibition of the movie. Being a work of fiction, the artist intends to depict events, expressions, circumstances and happiness based upon creative portrayal by an artist. There can be no restriction on such an act of artist as it would be an attack on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1-A) of the Constitution of India. It is also argued that the Central Board of Film Certification had duly taken into consideration all the guidelines that have been prescribed under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder

and also the guidelines for exhibition of films for public exhibition. Nothing insidious was found by the Central Board of Film Certification and whatever amendments/rectification/corrections as are required to be done have been undertaken prior to the grant of Certification by the Central Board of Film Certification. Any set of people of set of group cannot thereafter be permitted to dictate his displeasure and to claim that any such work of art ought not to be exhibited. The same would amount to creation of an authority beyond the rule of law who could dictate its terms and claim for prior approval for release/exhibition of any movie.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties have gone through the pleadings and the arguments raised by the respective parties. Before proceeding further in the matter, it is necessary to understand the history of Nihangs and as to whether they are part of Sikh religion.

"Nihang" a Persian word meaning a "Crocodile", given to the Akalis by the invading "Mughals". They are a part of the Sikh Military order. They are renowned for their martial skills with a vocation of being a warrior. A Nihang has to live by a regime of Rehat (disciplined way of life), Naam Abhyaas, Knowledge and Jeevan (spiritual life). The Nihangs differ essentially from all other Sikh orders in being a militaristic organization. However, they are followers of Sikhism and Gurmat but are not a religion unto themselves. The attire given to them is traditional but it is not a part of religion. The symbols worn by them depict their rank and group but does not become a part of religion. An ardent follower of faith through its rituals and practices cannot partake religion itself which lives beyond the followers.

$ The question which next arises is to whether any belief of resemblance by a follower about the villain having similarities to their leader can be a valid basis for cancelling a film certification or prohibiting release thereof. At the outset, the film is not based on life of their leader and is not a biographic account. It claims to be inspired by a true event. It is not an adaptation of a true event or a dramatic representation of an event. An inspiration from an event is essentially a work of fiction woven around any aspect of an event. To illustrate, "Mahabharat" is an event which has been represented in varied forms by playwrights.

There has been account from the perspective of 'Karna'; from the perspective of 'Draupadi'; from the perspective of 'Arjun'; from the perspective of 'Duryodhan'; as well as various others including "Shakuni", "Gandhari" Karna's wife as well as 'Kuru Women'. Hence, any event may have diverse perspective and narrative. Such narrative is not an account of the event but a perspective from the point of view of the protagonist or the writer. Hence, it cannot be said that an event portrays a character or person in a shade other than the belief of an objector and that any such portrayal needs to be changed.

The dimensions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is subject to the restriction prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India and it does not confer any superior right of freedom to speech and expression on one person over the other. It cannot be interpreted to mean that every other person must express in the way of liking of the objector. That would rather truncate the spirit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and subjugate the right to the whims and caprices of anyone and everyone. Moral arguments for restriction on freedom of speech could be infringement of autonomy or dignity of the other.

negated or be made to surrender under intimidation. The understanding of the Right cannot be left to an abstract understanding by an uncontrolled regime devoid of reason and objectivity, thus silencing speech and expression. Such intolerant groups pose danger to the constitutional right allowing everyone to espouse their views.

Art and Artist have challenged contemporary wisdom and belief. Every such question, satire or criticism cannot be silenced by force or intimidation for questioning belief and perceptions. Public palatability is not the pre-requisite for the freedom if it is otherwise construed under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.

Thus, the petitioner cannot pray for prohibition of a movie from exhibition as it is not palatable to him or tends to portray his sectoral head in a manner he does not like, assuming even if that it does. The character may be inspired in some ways but the same is not portrayal of the person, as alleged. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not seen the movie and has challenged only the basis promotional trailer which is of 2-4 minute in length as against the feature film of 21⁄2 hours. Tolerance, acceptance and mutuality of existence are essence of Sikhism. Rigidity and intolerance have no scope in a religion which commenced by challenging rigidity and dogmatic practices and questioning the relic worship. Religion and belief are often beyond objectivity and are largely not influenced by anyone else's non-belief. Any such fear is disbelief in the foundation of religion itself which he claims to profess. A specific disclaimer is also made at the very beginning for it to be a work of fiction. Thus, any similarity to any person living or dead is purely an act of co-incidence.

It is further well set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indibily Creative Private Limited (Supra) that the statutory authority to certify a film for exhibition has been constituted under the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952. There is an entire code which deals with the viewing/screening and assessment of every movie before release thereof in the Cinema Hall for public exhibitions. Guidelines have been duly framed under the Act that are to be followed by the Central Board of Film Certification before issuance of any such Certification including the aspects of public morality, public order, decency and whether it is likely to incite commission of any offence.

The aforesaid parameters were also incorporated as a part of the statutory guidelines notified by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 5 (E) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Hence, any apprehension expressed by the petitioner cannot weigh more than the satisfaction already accorded by the Central Board of Film Certification. The statutory authority being custodian for ensuring the compliance of the guidelines so framed by the legislature is expected to have followed the same to the hilt. There can no presumption of failure of duty by Central Board of Film Certification. It was always open to any particular person to raise objections before the Central Board of Film Certification.

It is not disputed that no such objections were ever filed by the petitioner before the Central Board of Film Certification. So much so, even the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification on 02.07.2021 is not a subject matter of challenge despite lapse of more than one year since the issuance of the said certificate.

pulled off from screening or exhibition in threatres. Such tendency cannot be accepted or allowed to escalate as it curtails rights of every other person in society to espouse his views and to portray them. Any such restriction on right of the playwright, artist, musician or actor, if are to be subjected to popular notion of what is acceptable and what is not, would be a step towards rendering the rights guaranteed under the Constitution as illusory. The purpose of art and its ability of portrayal in myriad forms shall be gravely defeated.

Merely because the Constitution recognizes inalienable freedoms to every citizen, it would not by itself empower every citizen to become a law unto himself and to impose his authority over and above statutory authorities conferred with overseeing implementation of such law and protection of such rights. Once an adequate mechanism and guidelines have been prescribed under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 for public exhibition of movies, there cannot be any other check and balances. Those who disagree or have reservations of their own against such work of art are under no compulsion to watch/view the same. The ability to communicate ideas cannot be controlled by the acceptability of view to those whom they are addressed.

The petitioner has failed to refer to any undisputed religious scripture that would demonstrate that Nihang Sikhs are a part of Sikhism as a religion or that Nihang Jathedar is a religious head. At best, he is a practising warrior Sikh. The uniform of Nihang Jathebandi is not equivalent to the five Kankaars which are integral part of Sikh religion. Any such attempt on the part of the petitioner to equate the insignia worn by the Sikh Jathedar/Nihang Jathebandis to be a part of Sikh religion would rather be an abrasion of Sikh religion and is thus inacceptable.

The persons/people professing a religion or going by the rules of a religion do not become religion unto themselves. Religion far exceeds the people who profess it or follow the same. Resultantly, the attempt made by the petitioner to equate a Jathebandi or any community of Nihangs as an integral part of Sikh religion is thus a deliberate attempt to blur the line of religion and the followers thereof. No such attempt can be accepted for the purposes of crushing the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution of India to the people in general.

It is also undisputed that there is an efficacious remedy under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The same has not been availed. The petitioner has filed the present petition at a last moment and soon before its release despite the certificate having been issued for more than a year. Besides, as claimed, an advisor from Sikh body had been associated by the Central Board of Film Certification and he did not find it objectionable. There is no provision for any other review. There is thus no basis for this Court to come to a conclusion that the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification for release was bad. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The movie is not based on life of the Head Ajit Singh Poohla and it does not even make any such claim.

Further, merely because it claims on its tagline that 'it is not a murder but a correction', does not by itself challenge public order, decency or public morality. There are innumerable such instances where such themes have inspired movies. It would be arbitrary to not allow the respondent to exhibit his movie on this score.

% I do not find any legitimate claim to have been established by the petitioner for seeking stay on exhibition of the movie. The present petition is, thus, dismissed at this stage.

6* %$

$$ 1# B

N 5Q N: B

5Q N: