New Delhi: “Reputation is the only jewel that cannot be bought and is built over the years and a person who is robbed of it is no less than a destitute,” observed the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its over 100-page judgement that quashed a censor board certificate issued to the producers of film, Vyuham.
The verdict came on a petition by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) claiming that the movie defamed many political leaders of the party and revolved around cases that are currently subjudice.
A bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda accepted the TDP’s contention, while rejecting the movie producers’ and Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) submission that the political party did not have the locus standi to file the petition. The court flawed the approval given to the movie for its release and opined there was serious deficiency in the decision-making process, making the film’s clearance patently illegal and irrational.
Justice Nanda said filmmakers did not have “unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party or institution”.
Quashing the certificate issued in December 2023, the bench said: “Freedom of speech cannot be regarded as so righteous that it would make the reputation of another individual absolutely ephemeral.”
“It is no doubt true that the right to freedom of speech and expression is always regarded not only as a constitutional right but a right inherited in every human yet, such right is not absolute as it is circumscribed with reasonable restrictions. It is thus held that the balancing of a fundamental right with the reasonable restriction is an inviolable constitutional necessity,” added the bench, maintaining the reputation of an individual is an “important part of one’s life”.
Also Read: ‘Bollywood is anti-Hindu’: Top body of Hindu religious leaders wants a ‘Sanatan Censor Board’
‘Presents politicians in defamatory manner’
According to the TDP’s petition, the permission for the movie’s release was accorded despite the expert committee of the censor board giving a finding that the movie depicted two of its leaders as buffaloes. It relied upon the expert committee’s report of 1 November, 2023 to suggest that the entire content of the movie is defamatory.
It said the revising committee of the board did not address this aspect of the film and overlooked objections highlighted in the expert committee’s report to give the certificate on 13 December 2023. TDP’s representation given on three occasions – 30 October, 4 November and 1 December – was also ignored, which the party said in its petition was in “clear violation of the principles of natural justice”.
In response, the producers and the film certification board questioned the high court’s jurisdiction to hear TDP’s petition. A political party, they said, is not a juristic entity.
They also argued the HC cannot sit in an appeal over a decision of the expert body. They questioned the party’s locus standi and objected to the petition on the grounds that it was not maintainable.
They asserted the movie “is an artistic expression within the parameters of law.” As for the complaints, they said, TDP’s representations were looked into.
The HC, however, held that TDP is a recognised party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has a distinct entity, enjoying constitutional recognition. Therefore, the party fits into the definition of the word “person” under the General Clauses Act, 1897 and is, therefore, authorised to file the petition.
The court referred to the expert committee’s report and said it clearly indicates that there “is striking resemblance of characters in the film with actual public and political figures/celebrities” and “is derogatory to few persons and their political parties which is against Guidelines (of the Cinematographer’s Act).”
It also took into account a letter dated 7 November 2023 sent by the regional officer of the CBFC, Secunderabad, to the additional chief electoral officer which too said that the “film depicts the real incidents happened in AP following the death of ex CM YS Rajasekhara Reddy, including formation of present government of Shri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Skill Development Scam”.
“It presents many political personalities in a defamatory manner,” the court concluded.
Despite these observations, the revising committee made no major deletions or edits to the movie. It said this 10-member panel, after watching the movie on 4 December 2023, did not record one single reason, as is mandated under the law, and proceeded in favour of the film’s release.
This decision, it said, was contrary to the clear findings of the expert committee’s report that refused to give it a certificate. Terming it as an abuse of power, the action, the court said, was taken without reasons, which, it opined, is “non-est in law”.
Against this backdrop, the high court said, it was well within its jurisdiction to judicially review the “administrative decision” that certified the movie for its release. It said the movie’s release is likely to have an adverse civil consequence, which requires a judicial intervention.
“This court opines in the present case there is patent illegality or apparent error. The error apparent as borne on record, on the face of the decision itself is the failure to comply with the procedure stipulated,” the court said, adding the revising committee had failed to give reasons supporting the release.
“Reason is the soul of justice, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, recording of reasons is principles of natural justice as it ensures transparency and fairness in decision making,” the court added.
Though the revising committee had received representations from TDP, there was nothing on record to show that the party was heard. The original record, the court said, neither refers to the representations of TDP nor records any reasons for rejecting their requests. This, the court termed, was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
“A decision taken by any authority affecting the right to reputation of an individual has civil consequences. Therefore, in such situations the principles of natural justice would come into play,” the court said, as it held TDP’s petition was maintainable.
“Any order or decision of the authority adversely affecting the personal reputation of an individual must be taken after following the principles of natural justice,” it said, adding in the present case the procedure laid down under the statute has been totally ignored by the revising committee, which, “irrationally and without appreciating the material on record issued the certificate” in favour of the movie.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: ‘A’ in Rajasthan but ‘U/A’ in Kerala: Film-makers want censorship to be sensitivity-centric