Filmmakers Have No Unbridled Right To Tarnish Reputation Of Political Party: Telangana High Court Quashes Censor Certificate Of 'Vyuham' On TDP's Plea

Film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any political party, the Telangana High Court said recently while quashing the certificate issued to the producers of the Film Vyuham for theatrical release.

The Bench comprising Justice Surepally Nanda allowed a petition filed by Telugu Desham Party which alleged that the movie was defami to many political leaders of the TDP and contended that it covered issued sub-judice.

The Court noted that the Revising Committee, ignoring the reasons laid down by the Expert Committee for rejecting the initial request for certification and without furnishing any reasons, allowed the request for certification, when made for a second time.

The Expert Committee had noted that not even the names of the individuals being played in the movie were changed. Additionally it was noted that the movie was an interpretation of the actual events as understood by the Director.

"The film depicts the real incidents that happened in A.P. following the death of ex-CM Y.S. Raiasekhar Reddy, including formation of present Government of Sri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Skill Development Scam and it presents many political personalities in a defamatory manner and the propaganda material..." the Expert Committee had said.

The Court noted that despite the said observation, no major deletions or edits were made to the movie. It then observed,

"...film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party or Institution. Reputation is the 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...The right to preserve ones reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem i.e., a right against the entire world."

The producers had contended that a political party not being an individual cannot claim to be defamed and also that the certificate was issued by a body of experts and the Court could only examine their decision making process.

In regards to this contention the Court held:

"Although till recently the constitution has not expressly referred to the existence of political parties, by the amendments made to it by the constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act, 1985, there is now a clear recognition of the political parties by the constitution as distinct entities enjoying constitutional recognition and the Tenth Schedule to the constitution which is added by the above Amending Act acknowledges the existence. of the political parties. Thus a recognized political party is also a separate person apart from its members."

The Bench conceded that while exercising the power of judicial review the Court is not sitting in appeal of the decision but must confine itself to examine only 5 questions of legality, them being as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:

(1) Patent Illegality, committing an error in law.

The Bench noted that there was an apparent error in the procedure implemented by the Revising Committee as the process stipulated under Rule 24(9) of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules, 1983 were not adhered to.

It was noted that when the Examining Committee first watched the movie, the request for certification was rejected unanimously listing a number of irregularities. However, when the movie was reviewed for the second time, by the Revising Committee, the committee without paying heed to the observation made by the Expert Committee and without noting down reasons and suggestions had issued the certificate.

(2) Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:

The Bench secondly noted that the members of the TDP had made representations before the Revising Committee not to issue certificates to the movie owing to the defaming content and the report of the Expert Committee. Nonetheless, no mention of such representations finds place in the report submitted by the Revising Committee.

It was noted that although the representations were placed before the Revising Committee, neither the representations nor the report submitted by the Expert Committee were looked into.

"...admittedly the Petitioner was not provided an opportunity to have Petitioner's say in the matter. The original record pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 13.12.2023, neither refers to the representations of the Petitioner nor records any reasons or any discussion evidencing consideration of Petitioner's representations nor the report of the Examining Committee dated 01.11.2023 and therefore it is clear that the averments made at para 12 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to 4 herein are incorrect."

(3) Procedural Impropriety:

The Bench has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Shankara Reddy v. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao to hold that when the statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner,it should be done in that manner or not at all. Drawing parallel to the case at hand, the Bench noted that the procedure prescribed under the statute was ignored.

(4) Irrationality:

Justice Nanda noted that the order passed by the Revising Committee was irrational and no reasonable person would pass such an order considering the material on record and the same is violative of Rule 22(B), 24(6) and 24(9) of the Cinematography Rules.

(5) Whether the decision making Authority exceeded its authority and exceeded its power?

Summarizing the previous 4 points analyzed by the Bench, Justice Nanda concluded that decision making authority exceeded its power and authority under the Rules.

"since a bare perusal of the original records pertaining to the order impugned dated 13.12.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent clearly indicates that there is a serious flaw. a patent illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality and a breach of the rules of natural justice in the decision making process itself by the Expert Body explained above and hence under these circumstances this Court opines that the judgements relied upon by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 7 have no application to the facts of the present case and this Court is constrained to reject the plea put forth by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 7 that the decision making process is in conformity with law and that the Expert Body empowered under the Act had examined the movie "Vyuham'' and found the same as not defamatory."

Hence, the Certificate was set aside and the Revising Committee was directed to re-examine the movie, within 3 weeks strictly in conformity with the Cinematography Rules and duly communicate the decision to all concerned parties.

Case no.: WP 34681 of 2023

Counsel for petitioners : Unnam Muralidhar, Senior Advocate

Counsel for respondents: A Narsimha Sharma, Senior Advocate. A. Venkatesh, Senior Advocate. Addl Solicitor General and Rajgopallavan Tyagi.

Click Here To Read/Download Order