- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Mere Hurting Of Sensibilities Not...
Mere Hurting Of Sensibilities Not Defamation; CBFC Certificate Prima Facie Shows Film Not Defamatory : Supreme Court
Shruti Kakkar
25 Feb 2022 5:50 PM IST
"Mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation, if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others"
The Supreme Court on Thursday while dismissing a plea to stay the release of film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" observed that the film certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) prima facie showed that the film was not defamatory. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari while considering SLP assailing Bombay High Court's order...
The Supreme Court on Thursday while dismissing a plea to stay the release of film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" observed that the film certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) prima facie showed that the film was not defamatory.
The observation was made by the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari while considering SLP assailing Bombay High Court's order of rejecting to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi", based on the book "Mafia Queens of Mumbai".
The petition was filed by the person claiming to be an adopted son of the protagonist of the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" seeking an interim relief to restrain the respondents from releasing the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi" on the ground that it was defamatory to his adoptive mother.
While dismissing the petition(Shri Babuji Rawji Shah vs S.Hussain Zaidi and others), the bench said,
"There are no materials disclosed or even pleadings to show, even prima facie, that the petitioner was a family member or a near relative of Gangubai. The contention of the petitioner is that the story of Gangubai sought to be depicted is untrue, is vague and devoid of material particulars. In any case, whether the story is true or incorrect would have to be decided by the Court upon examination of the evidence. The film certificate issued by the CBFC prima facie shows that the film is not defamatory. Prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law.
In the circumstances, interim relief was rightly refused to the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner is pending in the High Court. It is open to the petitioner to agitate all issues in the pending appeal. Any observations made in the impugned order at the interlocutory stage will not affect the decision in the appeal. The impugned order does not call for interference of this court."
The Court further observed that "mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation, if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others".
While adjudicating on the issue as to whether ad interim stage should be granted or not, the bench noted that it was not in dispute that the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" had already been given the requisite certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Referring to section 5B and 6 of Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rule 32 of the Cinematograph(Certification) Rules, 1983, the bench noted that the petitioner had apparently made no complaint to the CBFC.
"The fact that the film has been certified by CBFC, which comprises of a body of experts prima facie shows compliance with the requirements of the guidelines," bench said.
While laying down the ingredients for maintaining an action in tort of defamation, Court said that mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation, if the person said to be defamed is not lowered in character or credit in the eyes of others.
"It is well settled that for interim relief, the court has to consider the prima facie case made out by the applicant for interim relief, both on the question of locus standi to sue, if questioned and on the merits of the prayer for interim relief. The Court also has to consider the balance of convenience," bench said while dismissing the appeal.
Headnotes