Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Central Board of Film Certification and the Union of Bharat in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking cancellation of the censor certificate granted to the film "Taaqatwar Policewala," originally produced in Telugu and subsequently dubbed in Hindi.

The PIL alleged that the film contains a derogatory dialogue spoken by the main character, a policeman, regarding people belonging to Bihar, which is against the unity and integrity of the country and therefore, in view of provisions contained in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, the grant of certificate for public exhibition to the film was improper and against the law.

While issuing notice, the division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla directed the opposite parties to bring on record the criteria and procedures adopted by the Censor Board for issuing certificates to films. 

The PIL plea also prayed for a direction to the Government of Bharat to take action against the Chairman and other concerned members of the Central Board of Film Certification for granting certificates for public exhibition to "such films that should not have been granted the required certificate in view of the provisions in 5 B of the Cinematograph Act".

The plea has been filed by Deepanker Kumar, an advocate mainly practicing at Lucknow bench of the high court.

The counsel for the petitioner Adv Ashoke Pande mentioned before the division bench that many petitions against films in which the names of Gods and Goddesses have been given to maid servants, prostitutes and goons and abusive language have been used against women characters, are pending before the Lucknow bench after notices to the concerned parties but in none of them, any reply has been filed by the Censor board inspite of passing of 7-8 years.

Taking note of the same, the bench ordered that a reply should be filed by the Censor Borad by the next date or the representative of the Borad will have to be persent before the court via virtual court facility.

The plea stated that "to comment on the citizens of Bharat based on their domicile in a particular state in a film produced in some other state, badly affects the unity and integrity of the country".

It underscored that "inspite of such anti national dialogues which create danger to the unity and integrity of country and can also create danger to the public order apart from disturbing the good relations between the citizens residing in different parts of the country, the films are being granted the certificate for public exhibition by the Central Board of Film Certification and so are being shown to the people across the world".

The plea emphasises that due to the atmosphere created by such films, Mahua Moitra, a political leader from West Bengal called Member of Parliament Nishi Kant Dube ‘Bihari Gunda'.

Case Title: Deepanker Kumar v. Central Board of Film Certification and Others