'We Aren't Super Censor Boards, Do Proper Research': Delhi High Court Rejects Pleas Against CBFC Certification To 'The Taj Story' Film

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 30) refused to entertain two petitions filed challenging the certification given to “The Taj Story” film which is slated to be released on October 31. 

As the petitioners sought to withdraw the petitions, the court granted them liberty to approach the Central Government invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

The pleas had been filed by Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas, both lawyers by profession. It is their case that the film carries fabrication of facts and propagation of a "communal propaganda.”

During the hearing as the petitioner requested that court may give a direction to CBFC to at least change the disclaimer, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela orally asked, "Are we super censor board?".

The petitioner however said that the court has ample powers.

To this the Chief Justice said, "Try to understand our limitations. We are not super censor boards...The difficulty in such matters is many times parties and counsels get charged. Avoid that. You have to make our case within framework of the Act. Please point out any of the violation of the principles. There is complete statutory remedy available to you under the Act, you must know that". 

The bench thereafter in its order dictated: 

"The PILs raise the grievance regarding certification granted by CBFC to feature film titled The Taj Story. On being pointed out that the Act of 1952 doesn't contain any provision permitting board to review its decision, therefore prayer one made in petitions can't be granted, counsel for both petitioners have argued that they are not against exhibition of film but only intend that board may direct producer to insert a disclaimer that depiction in the film is not history. Section 6 provides a revisional remedy to a person aggrieved by film certification and it would be more appropriate for petitioners to approach the central govt by invoking remedy under Section 6. Counsel for the petitioners seek to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to invoke remedy under Section 6. Petitions are thus dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed". 

The court further said that if any such remedy is invoked, the same is to be decided by the authority in accordance with law. It also clarified that any observation made shall not be construed as our opinion on the merits on the claim of the parties.

The petitioner, Abbas, has alleged that the movie's potential is to create a communal disturbance amongst different communities in the country.

When the matter was taken up the court asked Abbas, "First prayer is direction to review. Whether any certification granted by censor board is reviewable under the Act? Whether the Act makes any provision permitting censor board to review its decisions? Where is the certificate you are challenging?"

The counsel said, "We have not annexed because it is not in public domain. There is provision that certification and public opinions received shall be uploaded on website. There is a login id required. But [there is] no option for creating it". 

The Court again asked the counsel about the power of censor board to review.

"There is no provision for review. Therefore we cant issue such direction. You are aggrieved by certification. Is there any remedy available to you under the Act for challenging such certification?" the Chief Justice said. 

Justice Gedela meanwhile said, "Do basic research before coming. You don't have the Act with you, you don't have the Rules. Just because you think something is…"

The Counsel said that he is not seeking complete ban on film but is aggrieved by some scenes. Referring to the trailer of the movie he said, "The lead actor Mr. (Paresh) Rawal states that…"

Justice Gedela asked as why the petitioner had made Paresh Rawal a party and only a  director or producer can be a party. 

The Chief Justice said, "He is only a professional actor. He is not responsible for contents. It is the producer or may be the director. You want a disclaimer. In any film or fiction, based on historical facts so many fictions available, whether the author puts disclaimer that it is not history? Even for history, versions of two authors may be there. These are the issues which cant be decided here. Whatever you believe to be correct history may not be held by someone else to be correct history".

Meanwhile Justice Gedela said that anyone can say anything and nobody is giving a stamp of "genuinity"

Justice Gedela meanwhile said, "You have not even researched on previous orders we have passed. You have just filed the petition".

The petitioner however said that the subject matter was same but facts pleaded by petitioner therein were different. To this the court said, "Why cant you exercise revisional remedy before the government?"

Meanwhile advocate Ashish Dixit for Central government said that the petitioner had not even given a representation.

The court remarked that it was not "sitting here for you to do your research". 

"You should have done proper research before filing petition. You should have taken revision petition before government. When you come to court your argument has to be laced with law", the Chief Justice said. 

With respect to Gautam's petition the Court was informed by Gautam who appeared in person that even she has not exercised remedy of revision before central govt.

The court asked the petitioners to file a file revision before central government under section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, pursuant to which Gautam said that she would like to withdraw the plea. 

The respondents in the petition are Union of India through Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Central Board of Film Certification, film production company- Swarnim Global Services Pvt. Ltd., producer C A Suresh Jha, director Tushar Amrish Goel, writer Saurabh M. Pandey, Zee Music Company and actor Paresh Rawal.

The plea alleges that the production house, producer, director, writer and Rawal are “continuously launching controversial films one by one” and are trying to promote a particular political party through movies like The Kashmir Files and The Bengal Files.

The plea states that the Union Government as well as the CBFC are well aware of the alleged harmful impact of the movie, adding that the producer, writer and actor of the film are trying to mislead the history by spreading misinformation about Taj Mahal.

The PIL thus seeks a direction on CBFC to review the certification granted to the film and examine the possibility of requiring appropriate disclaimers or restrictive conditions such as adult certification and removal of certain scenes to protect communal harmony and historical integrity.

It further seeks a direction on the producer or distributor of the film to clearly display, in all promotions and in the credits, a prominent disclaimer stating that the movie deals with a contested narrative and does not claim to be a definitive historical account.

A direction is also sought on the authorities to take preventive steps to ensure that no communal incidents arise from the release of the Film, including in the tourism area of the Taj Mahal in Agra.

Title: Chetna Gautam v. The Union of India & Ors