Padmavati Film Controversy: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for CBI Investigation and Pre-emptive Action

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors., concerning the controversial film Padmavati. The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, with two primary prayers: one, that the film should not be exhibited in foreign countries without obtaining the necessary certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and two, that a criminal investigation be initiated against the filmmakers for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and related laws.

Background of the Case

The case was filed by Manohar Lal Sharma, an advocate, as a public interest litigation (PIL). He sought the issuance of a writ directing the CBFC to withhold the exhibition of the film Padmavati until a proper certificate was obtained under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Sharma’s plea also demanded the registration of an FIR against the filmmakers for offenses under the IPC, including Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 499 (defamation), and Section 500 (punishment for defamation), along with Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

The controversy arose due to allegations that the film, which depicts the story of Queen Padmini, portrayed historical figures and events in a way that was offensive to the Rajput community. Various groups and political figures called for a ban on the film even before its official release.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Manohar Lal Sharma)

The petitioner raised the following key points:

The film Padmavati had not received the necessary certification from the CBFC and therefore should not be exhibited in foreign countries or any other jurisdiction.
The film, by distorting historical facts, could incite violence and hurt the sentiments of certain communities, particularly the Rajputs.
The film’s content could incite communal unrest and should be examined before being allowed to be released.
There was a need for a thorough investigation into the film’s content, as it allegedly contained defamatory material that misrepresented historical facts and hurt public sentiments.

Respondent’s Arguments (Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Others)

The respondents, represented by senior counsel, argued the following:

The film had not been released yet and was still awaiting certification from the CBFC, which is the statutory authority to decide on matters relating to film certification.
The content of the film, including any sensitive scenes, had been carefully reviewed by the CBFC and appropriate changes made in compliance with guidelines.
The filmmakers had no intention to cause offense to any community or group and maintained that artistic expression should not be suppressed.
The petitioner’s claims of a potential public disturbance were speculative and lacked evidence. No action could be taken based solely on media reports and pre-release screenings.
The registration of an FIR against the filmmakers was untenable without solid evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, making the following key observations:

“At the outset, it is important to note that the CBFC is the statutory authority responsible for certifying films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.”
“Until the CBFC has issued a certificate for a film, no action should be taken based on speculative allegations or potential claims regarding the film’s content.”
“It is not for this Court to pre-emptively judge the content of a film or pass orders preventing its exhibition. The CBFC is equipped to deal with such concerns, and it would be an encroachment on its statutory duties for this Court to intervene prematurely.”
“The issue of pre-judging a matter concerning a film before its certification is inappropriate, as it undermines the authority of the CBFC and sets a dangerous precedent for censoring creative works.”
“The petitioner’s request for an FIR to be registered against the filmmakers is without merit. There is no substantial basis for alleging that criminal offenses have occurred, particularly when the film is still in the certification process.”

The Court also expressed concern about the way PILs were being used to bring personal grievances or sensational issues into the courtroom:

“Writ petitions should not be filed with the intent of gaining publicity or sensationalizing an issue. Such petitions tarnish the reputation of the judicial process and should not be entertained unless there is clear legal standing.”
“Petitions with unsubstantiated allegations and no legal foundation should be struck off the record to prevent misuse of the Court’s time.”

The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition, reiterating the importance of artistic freedom and the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that films are released lawfully and responsibly.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is the primary authority responsible for certifying films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The judiciary cannot intervene in the certification process unless there is clear violation of law after the CBFC’s review.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) should not be used for sensation-seeking purposes and must adhere to proper legal principles.
Films and other forms of creative expression are protected under the freedom of speech and expression, but this protection is subject to legal boundaries.
The Court emphasized the importance of a reasonable standard when considering restrictions on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to creative works.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. marks a significant moment in balancing freedom of speech and expression with the protection of public interests. The Court has reinforced the role of the CBFC as the statutory authority in certifying films and cautioned against using PILs for sensationalizing issues or attacking works of art based on unproven allegations.

By dismissing the petition, the Court has emphasized the need for restraint in commenting on or attempting to restrict films prior to their certification, ensuring that the freedom of artists and creators remains protected while still allowing for the proper legal channels to address grievances if they arise post-certification.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Manohar Lal Sharma vs Sanjay Leela Bhansal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category