IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.05.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Writ Petition Nos.11983 and 12929 of 2008 International Sri Vaishnava Dharma Samrakshanaa Society, rep. by its President Sri Swami Govinda ... Petitioner in Ramanuja Dasa W.P.11983/08 Kalyana Suba Samithi ... Petitioner in W.P.12929/08 Vs. 1.The Censor Board, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6. 2.M/s.Oskar Films (P) Ltd., rep. by V.Ravichandran ... Respondents 3.K.S.Ravikumar in W.P.11983/08 1.The Censor Board, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6. 2.M/s.Oskar Films (P) Ltd., rep. by Sri Ravichandran 3. Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. of ... Respondents Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai. in WP.12929/08 Writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.11983/08 : Directing the first respondent to cut and remove offending scenes in the film "Dasavatharam" while issuing Censorship Certificate without removing offending scenes such as, (1) Violent clash between Saivaitu and Vaishnavites, (ii) Mr.Kamal Hassan stepping on Pranava Mandiram "Om" and tramping on Holy "Bhagavat Geetha", (iii) tieing of Ramanujar with idol by Sri Ranga Ranganathar and pushing it into sea by Saivaites and presence of terrorist in sanctum sanctorum and substitute title of Dasavatharam with any other suitable title and such other scenes, and forbear the respondents 2 & 3 from releasing the film releasing the said picture without effecting removal of such offending scenes and WP.No.12929/08 : Petition praying under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the screening of the production called "DASAVATHARAM" produced by the 2nd respondent, and give suitable instructions to the 3rd respondent to take adequate measures for protecting the life and safety of the general public and directing the 1st respondent to withdraw the certificate granted for screening the movie as stated therein. For Petitioner : Sri Swami Govinda Ramanuja Dasa, party in person (WP.11983/08) Mr.R.Subramanian (WP.12929/08) For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravindran, ASGI, for R.1 Mr.R.Shanmugam, for R.2 Mr.Kravi, for R.3 COMMON ORDER K.VENKATARAMAN, J Posing that the film 'Dasavatharam', the name by itself and certain scenes in the said film would hurt the feelings of the Hindus more so the Vaishnavites, the petitioners have approached this Court for stalling the release of the said movie. 2. W.P.No.11983 of 2008 has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to cut and remove the offending scenes in the film 'Dasavatharam' mentioned thereon while issuing Censorship Certificate and forbear respondents 2 and 3 from releasing the said picture without effecting removal of such offending scenes. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. W.P.No.12929 of 2008 has been filed for writ of mandamus forbearing the screening of the production called 'Dasavatharam' produced by the second respondent and to give suitable directions to the third respondent in the said writ petition viz., the Secretary to Government, Home Department, to take adequate measure for protecting the life and safety of the general public and directing the first respondent to withdraw the certificate granted for screening the movie. 4. The short facts which led to the filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.11983 of 2008, as put forth by the petitioners, are as follows:- (a) The petitioner society in W.P.No.11983 of 2008 was formed to protect and propagate the Vaishnava Dharma. The Vaishnavites preach tolerance and non-violence. The mantra of Dasavathara Thirunamams are chanted by them. The sacred name 'Dasavatharam' is yet other name of Sriranga Ranganathar. 'Dasavatharam' depicts ten incarnation of God namely Macha, Koorma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parasurama, Rama, Balarama, Krishna and Kalki. (b) On 01.05.1998, the T.V. Channel telecast directly the release trailer in Kalaignar Tholaikatchi with respect of 'Dasavatharam' Tamil Talkie Film featured by Sri Kamala Hassan, directed by Sri Ravikumar and produced by M/s.Oscar Films (P) Limited. The special function was being intercepted by the telecast of the trailer of 'Dasavatharam' film. Some of the scenes in 'Dasavatharam' were video recorded and scanned. The title given to the Tamil Talkie picture sarcastically ridicule the Hindu religious sentiments in disguise. The title 'Dasavatharam' has given attraction and lure the Hindus. The offensive scenes such as clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavites occupy the theme of the story. It is contrary to past events recorded and registered in the history. It wounds the feelings every sect of Hindus. (c) On 01.05.2008, the President of the petitioner society received several phone calls from public who follow and embrace Hindu faith in connection with some of the offensive scene telecast in the trailer of Tamil film 'Dasavatharam' produced by the second respondent and directed by the third respondent. The public in general and Vaishnavites in particular sect among Hindus are very much agitated and offended by giving title to the screenplay as 'Dasavatharam'. Though there is no intellectual property in the use of title of 'Dasavatharam', but it offends the religious faith. (d) The trailer of 'Dasavatharam' showed offending scenes particularly the hero of the film Mr.Kamala Hassan steps on Pranava Mantram "Om" and gains force to tramp on Bhagavat Gita. It offended the sentiments of every Hindu particularly Vaishnavites like the members of the petitioner society. In the history of Ramanujachariar, none of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vaishnavites took to violence. It is seen that Mr.Kamala Hassan, who acted in the role of Ramanujar was tied along with idols of Sriranga Ranganathar and was pushed into the sea by the Saivaites. In the history, there was no such incident or occurrence. Further it was exaggerated in the screenplay, which will promote clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavities. Even if it is alleged that they were part history, it need not be screened in such a way to create hatred and violence. (e) In the meeting held on 01.05.2008, a resolution was passed for removal of the offending scenes and religious clash. The offending scenes like religious clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavites, terrorism and violence, Mr. Kamala Hassan's Adventure stepping on Pranava Mandram "Om" to gain force and tramped on Holy Bhagavat Gita abuse of title and mantra 'Dasavatharam' and such other scenes. Thus, the petitioner society has come forward with the above writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 5. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12929 of 2008 in nutshell is as follows:- (a) The picture 'Dasavatharam' has been deliberately taken for screenplay with a view to fool the general public to denigrate the Hindu religion and thereby hurt the sentiments of the people in their faith of Hindu religion and wounding them irreparably. The two counts are (i) use of the term 'Dasavatharam' not connected to the movie and (ii) depicting certain things that are not true account of history. (b) The name of 'Dasavatharam' has been deliberately used with a view to convey the general public that the picture is a religion based one but in truth, it is a mockery of Hindu religion. It could trigger violence, social unrest and even riot. Above all, it will seriously wound the feelings of the people in general and Hindus in particular for the very use of the noble and sacred name 'Dasavatharam' to a picture not connected to Hindu religion. The incident of removal of the Pallikonda Ranganathar and throwal of it in the sea is contrary to the truth. The relevant king at that time is Kulothungha Chozhan - II. In fact, he had constructed the Great and Mighty Vaishnava Temple at Raja Mannarkudi. While so, he could not have removed and thrown the deity into the sea. The temple referred to is Chidambaram and to this day, the Pallikonda Ranganathar is there. (c) The scene in the movie shows tying of the Great Ramanujachariar with the deity for being thrown into the sea and in fact, a scene showing the throwing has been shown. The incident of throwing has never happened. By showing this scene, a hatred and conflict between Saivaities and Vaishnavites is sought to be created. The movie also shows that the great Ramanujachariar has killed several Saivities, which is not a fact and even if it be a fact, it ought not to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be shown for that would trigger violence and instances are many that Governments have suppressed such a showing. Thus, the petitioner in the said writ petition has come forward with the relief of mandamus referred to above. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Censor Board in W.P.No.11983 of 2008, which brings about the following facts:- (a) The petitioner had not explained as to how the title 'Dasavatharam' sarcastically ridicules or denigrates the religious sentiments of Hindus in disguise. The petitioner had not explained how and why the title of the film 'Dasavatharam' offends the religious faith. The title 'Dasavatharam' does not violate any of the guidelines issued under the Cinematograph Act. Hence, there cannot be any reason to object the said title. In fact, decades back, a film titled "Navarathri" which means 'nine nights' starred by late Mr.Sivaji Ganesan, was similarly certified and drew no offence from sections of public. Moreover, CBFC has also certified films with social message, carrying titles like 'Avatharam', 'Kalki', etc. (b) The film does not contain any clash between the Saivaites and Vaishnavites. On the contrary, it only picturises a scene where the Chozha King Kulothunga - II, who is known for his staunch faith in Shaivism, persecuted the Vaishnavites including their Guru Sri Ramanuja, which are in conformity with history. (c) The allegation that Mr.Kamala Hassan, the main character of this film is non believer of god, need not be taken cognizance by CBFC in certifying the film. The first respondent had not certified the scenes such as the stepping on Pranava Mantram or tramping on Bhagavat Gita. Mr.Kamala Hassan has not played the role of Sri Ramanuja as claimed by the petitioner, instead he had played a character called Rangarajan Nambi, an ardent disciple of Ramanuja and makes a supreme sacrifice due to his 'Gurubakthi'. He even fights with the King's soldiers who attempt to remove the idol of Govindaraja from the Temple of Chidambaram. But he was subdued by the King's might and when the King orders him to chant Panchakshara Mantra 'OM NAMASHIVAYA', contrary to the expectation of the King, he chants the 'Ashtakshara Mantra' (OM NAMO NARAYANA) with all the fervor and for this he was tied with the idol of Lord Govindaraja and thrown into the sea, the natural abode of Lord Mahavishnu. (d) It is a historical fact that the Chozha King Kulothunga-II, persecuted the Vaishnavites and Shri Ramanuja, who escaped from his clutches had lived in self exile in Mysore. Kulothunga-II made attempts to find Shri Ramanuja and in his efforts he even blinded Koorathalvar, one of the popular Vaishnavite saints, known for his Gurubakthi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) The petitioner's presumptions are based on his imagination and the film does not contain any violent sectorial clash between Saivites and Vaishnavites and no scene in the film seems to create hatred sect. This film pleads for abhorrence of religious intolerance and extremism among religious sects. (f) The examining committee of the film has previewed the film on 22.04.2008. After fully convinced that this film does not violate any of the Cinematograph Guidelines in its certified form, has issued a certificate with 'U' classification subject to cuts. The examining committee had not seen any such scene where either Mr.Kamala Hassan in any of the roles played in the picture steps on Pranava Mantra or tramps on the Holy Baghavat Git, which is evidenced by the endorsement to the certificate with cut list. Even without viewing the film, the petitioner preferred this petition, which is highly premature and is not maintainable. The impact of any scene or any part of the film can only be assessed, after viewing the film in its entirety. Thus, the first respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The second respondent, the producer of the film had filed a counter affidavit, which brings out the following facts, which are in nutshell are as follows:- (a) The writ petition had been filed with a view to get more publicity and to waste and misuse the precious judicial timings of this Court at the cost of general public and at the cost of the second respondent, who invested several crores of rupees in the film production keeping in high esteem of the entire religions. (b) The relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted at this belated stage. Once the Censor Certificate is issued after examining the film, the question of removing any scene at the choice of the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner does not arise. (c) The President of the petitioner society, who has not seen the film cannot file the writ petition with certain imaginary concept on mere presumptions that certain scenes of the film produced by the second respondent hurt the feelings of Vaishnavites and such scenes and sequences in the said film are contrary to historic events. (d) The theme of the film 'Dasavatharam' is not mainly on the alleged clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavites and the exact view and the exact theme and story line cannot be revealed at this stage as the production of the film 'Dasavatharam' is commercial venture by the second respondent and if it is revealed at this stage, it would drastically affect the business of the second respondent, who has already invested huge crores of money, anticipating several hundreds of crores of business throughout. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (e) No concrete material has been placed by the petitioner in respect of the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the absence of any proof, the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. There is no scene in the film 'Dasavatharam' hurting the religious sentiments of any Hindus, particularly the Vaishnavites. The entire film glorifies not only the religious sentimentss of Hindus but also the religious sentimentss of Christians and Muslims, including Sikh religion. No scene has been shot such as causing disrepute to Pranava Mantram 'Om" or to sacred book Bhagavat Gita. (f) It is not correct to state that Mr.Kamala Hassan had acted in the role of Sri Ramanujachariar and it is false to state that Sri Ramanujar was tied to the idol. The tying of hero with an idol before it was left in the ocean, is a fiction out of imagination and development for the purpose of the film and nothing else. Further, it is not correct to state that there is story line of terrorists entering into the sanctum of any temple as alleged. The story line and the theme are part of history of Tamil Nadu and this has been reflected in the book published by the Tamil Nadu Government vide part II, page 94 of the book titled as 'Pirkala Cholar History' and page 349 of the book titled as 'The Cholas', published by the University of Madras and page 314 of the Tamil Book titled as 'Tamil Nadu History - Chola Peruvendhar Times, Volume IV part II. (g) Any attempt to stall the film or to interfere with the release of the film as censored by the first respondent, would amount to curtailment of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) of The Constitution of India. (h) The word 'Dasavatharam' is not an intellectual property of the petitioner in the matter of usage of the same. The petitioner society came to be registered only in December, 2006, whereas the title 'Dasavatharam' was registered by the second respondent as early as 23.07.2005 and started production of the film. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any protest or objection over usage of the title 'Dasavatharam'. Further, the title 'Dasavatharam' is an ancient religious and historical title and no one else, much less any religious society like the petitioner can have any objection for the usage of the said title for the film production. Thus, the counter affidavit of the second respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Counter affidavit had been filed by Mr.K.S.Ravikumar, the Director of the film 'Dasavatharam', which in nutshell gives the following particulars:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The competent authority, viz., the first respondent, who after proper scrutiny, issued 'U' certificate to the subject film. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. (b) Without actually knowing the entire story line and background events of the movie, watching only one or two clippings or scenes in the trailer, the averments made in the affidavit stating that the title itself ridicules the Hindu religious sentiments, is premature and misconceived. The film contains no offensive scenes, especially that of any clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavites. The story and the events depicted from the 12th century are part of the history of Tamilnadu. In fact, the incident has been referred to in the books published by the Tamilnadu Government and also in the works of renowned historians. (c) In Tamil book titled Pirkala Chola Sarithiram part 2 at page 94, the incident of Vishnu's idol being laid on ocean is referred to. Similarly at page 349 of the book titled as "The Cholas" by the renowned historian, Mr.K.A.Nilakanta Sastri and published by University of Madras, a reference is made to removal of the shrine of Govindaraja from its place in Chidambaram. The same incident is referred to at page 314 of the Tamil book titled 'Tamil Nattu Varalaru Chola Peruventhar Kalam, Volume IV, Part II, published by the Government of Tamilnadu. Thus, the scene referred to in the affidavit of the petitioner is a historical fact. That the hero was tied to the idol before it was left in the ocean is a fiction added for the purpose of the film and the allegation in the affidavit that Sri Ramanujar is shown as tied to the idol is wrong. Not even one frame in the subject film that would even remotely hurt the religious sentiments of any group much less the sentiments of Vaishnavites. (d) There is no scene where either Mr.Kamala Hassan or any other character in the film trampling on the mantra 'Om' or the sacred Bhagavat Gita. The story is not about the life of either Sri Ramanujachariar or the temple of Srirangam. Mr.Kamala Hassan does not play the role of Sri Ramanujachariar in the film. No scene depicts or tends to propagate violence. (e) There is no necessity for removing any scenes from the subject film since they have already been scrutinised and certified by the first respondent and also there is no scene in the film, which offends any religious feelings in any way. In fact, there are characters belonging to the four major religions of our country, namely, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs, who depict and personify the best qualities in human beings such as patriotism, supreme sacrifice, service to people, love towards fellow human beings etc. In fact, the core message of the film is that whenever human beings are in extreme trouble and seek the intervention of the Divine Power, Sri Vishnu answers the call and saves them from all trials and tribulations. In fact, Lord Govindaraja, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i.e., Sri Vishnu is stated to be and portrayed as the protector of people and is shown to prevent the great catastrophe thus, saving millions of life. (f) There is no copyright over the word 'Dasavatharam'. There is no abuse of the word anywhere in the film. The word is common and equally respected by all Hindus. The title only signifies that the hero plays ten different characters in the subject film. Thus the counter of the third respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Mr. Swami Govinda Ramanuja Dasa, the President of the petitioner society in W.P.No.11983 of 2008 appeared in person and put forth his contentions. We have also heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.12929 of 2008, Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the first respondent, Mr.R.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in W.P.No.11983 of 2008. 10. Mr. Swami Govinda Ramanuja Dasa, the President of the petitioner society in W.P.No.11983 of 2008 submitted that: (a) On 01.05.1008, the T.V. Channel telecast directly the release trailer in Kalaignar Tholaikatchi with respect of the film 'Dasavatharam'. Some of the scenes in the said film were video recorded and scanned. He has received several phone calls from public who follow and embrace Hindu faith in connection with some of the offensive scenes telecast in the Tamil film 'Dasavatharam'. The general public, more so Vaishnavites in particular were very much agitated and offended by the said telecast. He has more emphasised on the following scenes, which according to him, are offending scenes:- (i) violent clash between Saivaites and Vaishnavites (ii) Mr.Kamaal Hassan stepping on Pranava Mandiram "Om" and tramping on Holy Bhagavat Gita (iii) tying of Ramanujar with idol by Sri Ranga Ranganathar and pushing it into sea by Saivaites and presence of terrorist in sanctum sanctorum and substitute title of 'Dasavatharam' with any other suitable title and such other scenes. (b) He has thus pleaded that if the offending scenes in the film 'Dasavatharam' are removed, there cannot be any objection for the release of the film. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.12929 of 2008 submitted that on two counts the picture hurts the sentiments of the people in their faith of Hindu religion, viz., (i)use of term 'Dasavatharam' not connected to the movie; (ii)depicting certain things that are not true account of history. He has elaborated his argument on those counts. According to him, the name 'Dasavatharam' is connected with Hindu religion and the same cannot be used for a film of this nature. The title will fool the public by making them to believe that the picture movie is a real 'Dasavatharam' as enshrined in the Hindu religious text books about the ten Avathars of God. The removal of Pallikonda Ranganathar and throwing of it into the sea is contrary to truth. By showing this scene, a hatred and conflict between Saivaties and Vaishnavites is sought to be created. 12. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the first respondent submitted that: (a) The committee had previewed the film 'Dasavatharam' and fully convinced that the film does not violate any of the Cinematographic Guidelines in its certified form and issued 'U' certificate. (b) When once the certificate had been issued, even the first respondent cannot withdraw the Censorship Certificate. Hence, the relief sought for by the petitioner directing the first respondent to cut and remove the offending scenes in the film cannot be done. (c) The first respondent has not certified any scene where the hero of the film Mr.Kamala Hassan stepping on Pranava Mantra and tramping on Holy Bhagavat Gita. (d) Without viewing the film, the petitioners preferred these writ petitions, which is highly premature. The impact of any scene or any part of the film could be assessed only if the film is viewed by the petitioner society or its members. 13. Mr.R.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent mainly contended that: (a) The title 'Dasavatharam' is not an intellectual property of the petitioner in the matter of usage of the same: (b) The first respondent had issued the Censorship Certificate after viewing the film, which will prove that there is no offending scene in the said film. The Censor Board had considered all aspects including the religious faith. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) There is no offending scene in the said film as projected by the petitioners. (d) Without viewing the film, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions on imaginary grounds. (e) The second respondent had spent huge amounts for the production of the film and the same cannot be stalled by the petitioners on certain imaginary grounds, which are only an illusion on the part of the petitioners. 14. Mr.K.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent mainly