Telugu Desam Party Approaches Telangana High Court Challenging Certification Of 'Vyuham' Film For Theatrical Release

The Telugu Desham Party has approached the Telangana High Court challenging the Certificate for Theatrical Release of the film 'Vyuham.'

'Vyuham' meaning strategy in Telugu is a political thriller following the alleged corruption within the States of Andhra Pradesh and is tentatively set to be released in Cinemas on the 29th of this month.

The movie had faced several setbacks while trying to attain the public Exhibition Certificate for which, last month, Ramadhunta Creations, the production house of the film approached the High Court seeking directions to the Revising Committee (formulated under the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 1983) to scrutinize and approve the application of the for public exhibition of the movie.

Justice Nanda, having heard both parties, had directed the Revising Committee to consider the application in accordance with the law and pass an order within 10 days.

The Telugu Desam Party approached the Court today, praying that the certificate awarded to the movie for public exhibition be quashed as illegal.

The matter was placed before Justice Surepalli Nanda.

It was contended that the examination committee had failed to follow the due procedure established by law and overlooked glaring inconsistencies with the guidelines while issuing the certificate.

The petitioner contended that the certificate was awarded without considering section 5(B) 1 & 2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and guideline number 2(xviii) of the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition, 1991.

It was argued that Section 5(B) 1 & 2 holds that the revising committee shall not grant a certificate to any film that is against the sovereignty of the Country or the security of the State. Guideline 2(xviii) stipulates that the Board of Film Certification shall ensure that no defamation of an individual/ individuals or contempt of Court is present, it was argued.

Senior Counsel Murlidhar Unnam appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the whole film contained defamatory remarks against the Ex- CM, Naidu.

The petitioner contended that the movie portrays (Ex-CM - AP) Chandra Babu Naidu as the antagonist and Jagan Mohan Reddy ( Present CM- AP) as the protagonist and touches upon various sub-judice criminal proceedings ( Skill Development Scam, YSR murder case etc) pending against Chandra Babu Naidu, which would not only amount to contempt of court but also ignite a media trial against the Ex-CM.

"Such a media trial will prejudice the public and also undermine the Court." the Senior Counsel contended while emphasizing that not even the names of characters had been changed.

Senior Counsel Unnam contended that the movie was an interpretation of the actual facts as understood by the Director and that the Director was prejudiced by his personal views. He further states that the Director in various press releases had admitted that the movie was his interpretation of the actual facts.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the movie ends with Chandra Babu Naidu calling the public 'fools' and an overlap of voices chanting slogans of Jaggan.

"At the crux of the matter, the only question that needs to be answered is which will prevail when Article 19 and Article 21 are pitted against each other." argued the Senior Counsel.

He relied on the Subramaniam Swamy judgment to reiterate that freedom to live a life with dignity will prevail over one's right to freely express oneself.

While concluding his argument he stated that "the release date of the movie can be postponed but defamation of a person cannot be revoked." and prayed that the Court may order an interim stay on the release of the movie, till the case was finally disposed of.

However, Justice Nanda deemed it fit that the matter be decided finally on the next date of hearing and has posted the matter on the 28th of December. ( one day before the tentative release of the movie).

WP: 34681 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: M/s Unnam Law Firm.