Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

1

Before The Honourable Moot Court ,


Govt. Law College , Calicut.



__________________________________________________________
New India Films Appellant

Versus

Vishnu Sharma Others Respondents
__________________________________________________________











2

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Index of Authorities.3

Cases cited.........................

Books and Articles

Statutes..

Statement of Jurisdiction...4

Synopsis of Facts.5

Issues Raised6

Summary of Arguments.

Body of
Arguments....8

Prayer.....14









3

_________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books Referred :
Shukla, V.N. , Constitution of India Tenth Edition

Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law Fifth Edition Volumes I and II

Basu, Durga Das, Commentary on the Constitution of India Eighth
Edition


Cases Referred :

1.Ajay Goswami V. Union Of India [AIR 2007 SC 493]
2.Khoday Distilleries Ltd. V. State Of Karnataka
[(1995) 1 SCC 574]
3.Olga Tellis V. Bombay Muncipal Corporation
[ AIR 1986 SC 180 ]
4.Raj Kapoor V. Layman [ AIR 1980 SC 605]
5.Rangarajan V. Jagjivan Ram [ (1989) 2 SCC 574]
6.St. of Bihar V. Lal Krishna Advani [ AIR 2003 SC 3357]
7.St. of H.P v. Raja Mahendra Pal [AIR 1999 SC 1786]









- Statutes -
1.The Constitution of India (1950)

2.Cinematograph Act, 1952

4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION


The Appelents approach the Honourable Supreme Court of India under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The respondents respectfully
submit to this jurisdiction invoked by the Appellants.





























__________________________________________________________
5

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS



This writ petition is filed against the order of High Court staying the A
certificate granted by the Appellate Tribunal under Cinematograph Act,
for the film JUNGLE RANI, and restraining its exhibition in India.
The film deals with the life of an innocent village girl transformed to a
dreaded dacoit due to social evil and brutality which she was subjected.
The Appellate Tribunal under Cinematograph Act has followed the
guidelines laid down in Cinematograph Certificate Rules and found that
the scenes of nudity and use of expletives were to be permitted in aid of
conveying the actual message in the film.Earlier the Censor Board and
the revising committee had recommended A certificate for the film
and hence the appeal to appellate tribunal, which also granted A
certificate, subject to removal of certain vulgar words. A writ petition
against the order of the tribunal was filed before the High Court, alleging
that the film is indecent against a particular community of India, was
violative of art. 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution, and against moral.
Social values upheld and followed in India. The High Court granted stay
against the order of appellate tribunal and hence this appeal to the
supreme court. The film company (appellant) contends that the order of
appellate tribunal is valid, that the High Court had violated their
fundamental rights under articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, and that the High Court has not considered the Cinematograph
Act , and the Cinematograph certification rules in the proper perspective.











__________________________________________________________
6

ISSUES RAISED



1.Whether the order of High Court is violative of Cinematogragh
Act 1952?

2. Whether the order of the High Court viloated the appellants
fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India?

3. Whether the order of High Court is an arbitrary and unreasonable
action, which violates article 14 of the constitution of India?
















7


_________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS



It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the
High Cort did not violated any of the provisions of Cinematograph Act
and Rules.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the
High Court dit not violated the Appellants fundamental rights under
article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order of the
High Cort is a reasonable action and is consistent with article 14 of the
constitution of India.




















8


BODY OF ARGUMENTS

2. Whether the order of the High Court violated the appellants
fundamental rights under article 19 and 21 of the constitution of
I ndia?


It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the order
of the High Court is not violative of the appellants fundamental rights
under article 19 and 21 of the constitution.

It is presented before this honourable court that the freedom of
speech and expression provided under article 19(1) a of our constitution
is subject to reasonable restriction on grounds set out under Article
19(2).

The reasonable limitations can be put in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly
relation with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Its therefore, clear that while the media- print, electronic, film or
any other is free to express opinion and thought, it is in the larger public
interest there should be some control by the state.

In Rangrajan V Jagjivan Ram[ (1989)2SCC 574] and
In Rajkapoor V Layman [AIR 1980 SC 60] it was observed
that a movie has a more profound and immediate effect on the mind and
9

has a unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings, it cannot be allowed
to function in a free market place just as does newspapers or magazines.

The film Jungle Rani in the instant case is obviously introduced
in order to titillate the senses and thus make the film commercially
saleable.

Rape and Sex are glorified in the film. The scene of violent rape
was disgusting and revolting and it denigrated and degraded
women.

The depiction in the film was abhorrent and unconscionable and a
slur on the womanhood of India.

Therefore, it is evident that the appellate Tribunals order was
vitiated by the use of the wrong tests.

Hence the High Courts order restraining the exhibition of film
Jungle Rani is just and proper does not offend the appellants
fundamental rights.

The challenged film Jungle Rani in the instant case, could
properly be regarded as either appealing to a prurient interest in
sex or depicting sex in patently offensive way.

Thus order of High Court restraining the exhibition of film is a
reasonable restriction envisaged under article 19(2) of the
constitution, i.e. in the interest of decency and morality.


10


Even though the theme of the film is of social relevance, the public
expression of such theme must not offend human sensibilities or
extol the degradation or denigration of women.

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, permits scenes of sexual violence
against women in a film, reduced to a minimum and without
details, only if relevant to the theme.

In the film Jungle Rani the scenes of sexual violence, vulgarity
and obscenity are overwhelming. Such scenes are not reduced to a
minimum and even particularized.

The depiction of the theme in the film is against the contemporary
standards of morality.

When obscenity and art are mixed; in order to protect the work, art
must be so preponderating as to throw obscenity into a shadow or
the obscenity is so trivial and insignificant that it can be have no
effect and nay be over looked.

Here the obscene contents in the film outweighs the
artistic, social merit of the film.

In Ajaya Goswami V Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 493)
the S.C held that the delicate task of deciding what is artistic and
what is obscene is to be performed by the Courts


11


The appellate tribunal was reluctant to exercise its power under
section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, which echoes Art. 19(2).

[By virtue of section 5.B of the Act, a film shall not be certified
for public exhibition if, in the opinion of authority competent to
grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests
of decency or morality]

In Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnadaka
(1995) 1 SCC 574, the apex court held that the right conferred
under article 19(1)(g) does not extend to carrying on occupation,
trade or business which is immoral and against welfare of the
general public.

So here the appellants right under article 19(1)
(g) is reasonably restricted in the interest of the justice.

In st. of H.P V Raja Mahendra Pal, [AIR 1999 SC 1786]
the Supreme Court observed that Even though the right to
livelihood would include all attributed of life, but it cannot be
extended to the extent it may enable a person to take recourse to or
earn his livelihood by violating the provision of any law.

In olga Tellis V Bomaby Muncipal Corporation
(AIR 1986 SC 180), it was held that right to livelihood means
which are not illegal, immoral or opposed to public policy.

12




RESPONDENTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable Court that the film is
indecent against a particular community of India and hence
violates the respondents fundamental rights under article 21 of the
constitution.

The film depicts the respondents community in a most depraved
way.

Most of scenes are suggestive of the moral depravity of the
community.

It lowered the reputation and respect of the community in the
society.

In State of Bihar V Lal Krishna Advani, [AIR 2003 SC
3357], the sc held that one has the right to have and preserve his
reputation and also to protect it.

Nobody can use his freedom of speech and expression as to injure
anothers reputation.

The film also offends the dignity of woman.
The film creates drastic consequence of affecting over the
particular communitys reputation.

13

Appellant is not a citizen of india.

It is humbly submitted that the Appellant can not claim protection under
Art. 19(1)(g) as it can be claimed by natural persons only. Juristic
persons have not been granted the status of citizens in India.

Cases on the issue of citizenship of a corporation.
There are several cases that deny the citizenship of the corporations. In
State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer7, the
Supreme Court held that a company or a corporation is not a citizen of
India and therefore it can not claim the fundamental rights that have
been guaranteed to citizens





















3. Whether the order of High Court is an arbitrary and
unreasonable action, which violates article 14 of the constitution of
India?

14

The Act of 1952 establishes at the apex of the structure a Board of Film
Certification comprising a chairman and not less than 12 and not more
than 25 other members. It is to this board that any application for
certification for public exhibition must be addressed. The chairman and
members are appointed by the Central government. They do not enjoy
security of tenure; no one in the entire edifice does. No qualifications are
prescribed either.
New Delhi also appoints at such regional centres as it thinks fit
advisory panels comprising such number of persons as it thinks fit. In
this instance, qualifications are prescribed in a statement of the
obvious. They must be qualified in the opinion of the Central
government to judge the effect of films on the public (emphasis added,
throughout). By this test, even literacy is not essential.
Unregulated powers
The government wields vast revisional powers exercisable at any
stage of the process, not only over the board but also over the tribunal
(Section 6). Have you ever heard of the executive sitting in appeal over a
judicial body? If the board receives a complaint in respect of a certified
film, all that it can do is to refer it to its masters, the Central government.
The board, it must be emphasised, is in law a quasi-judicial body.




The appellate tribunal was reluctant to exercise its power under section
5-B of the Cinematograph Act,
15


By virtue of section 5.B of the Act, a film shall not be certified for
public exhibition if, in the opinion of authority competent to grant the
certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of decency or
morality





















16



PRAYER FOR RELIEF


In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent, humbly prays before the Honorable Court, to be graciously
pleased to:

1. Quash the writ petition filed by the Appellant in the Honble court of
law since there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the
Appellant.

2. Maintain the status quo of the impugned order of High Court since
there is no violation of the rights as alleged by the Appellant.

3. Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice,
equity and good conscience.


All of which is most humbly prayed.





Counsel for the Respondent.