IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32841 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.G. VINAYA KUMAR @ VINAYAN, FILM MAKER, PROPRIETOR AAKASH FILMS, S/O.GOVINDAKURUP, AGED 52, BARATHY, PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-25. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED, SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.S.RENJITH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALACHITHRA KALABHAVAN VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. THE KERALA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY POST BOX NO.3577, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. 3. KERALA FILM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY KERALA FILM CHAMBER BUILING, XL/7425, 2ND FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, NEW DELHI-1. R2 BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SRI.M.F.MOHAMMOD SIYAD, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM. R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32841 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/06/1990 SENT BY THE CENSOR BOARD TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01/04/2003 ISSUED BY THE CENSOR BOARD TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY SRI.SURESH KUMAR B. TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01/03/2010 SUBMITTTED BY SRI.SURESH KUMAR B. TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/05/2010 SENT BY THE CENSOR BOARD TO SHRI SURESH KUMAR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/04/2010 SENT BY THE KERALA STATE CHALACHITHRA ACADEMY TO SHRI SURESH KUMAR. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/12/2009 BY THE KERALA FILM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION TO THE SOUTH INDIAN FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/12/2009 SENT BY THE SOUTH INDIAN FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CHENNAI TO SHRI CHENGAIH, THE PROPRIETOR OF RAVI PRASAD UNNIT, CHENNAI. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2010 SENT BY THE KERALA FILM CHAMBER TO KERALA FILM EXHIBITORS FEDERATION. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/07/2010 SENT BY THE KERALA FILM EXHIBITORS FEDERATION TO ALL ITS MEMBERS. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15/09/2010 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE TITLE OF THE FILM ''ARIYATHI ONNU ARABIAN RAVUKAL'' ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF FEE. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF R2 IN THE MEETING HELD ON 27/09/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32841 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a producer of films. In this writ petition, his main grievance is that since he is at loggerheads with respondents 2 and 3, he apprehends that, on producing and submitting his films for certification of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent will not do so without the clearance of respondents 2 and 3. 2. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that a film is to be certified by the 1st respondent in terms of the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification Rules), 1983. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules requiring that a producer should have membership with respondents 2 and 3 or that a producer should obtain any certificate or clearance from respondents 2 and 3 for the 1st respondent to consider the film for certification in accordance with law. 3. I heard the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for WPC No. 32841/10 :2 : the 1st respondent and the counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 as well. 4. Respondents also have no quarrel with the proposition canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no law obliging a producer to obtain any clearance from respondents 2 and 3 for getting his movie certified by the 1st respondent. In the light of the above and in view of the provisions contained in the Cinematograph Act and the Rules referred to above, it has to be held that, if a film produced by a producer like the petitioner is submitted for certification under the Act and the Rules, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the same for certification in accordance with law without insisting on any clearance from respondents 2 and 3. 5. However, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has invited my attention to Ext.P2, a communication issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 01/04/2003 setting up a local Publicity Material Screening Committee for screening posters that are published by the producers of movies. A reading of the communication discloses that such a Screening Committee was set up at the local level in WPC No. 32841/10 :3 : order to screen the publicity material of films to maintain standards of decency. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that Ext.P2 has been issued by the Government of India exercising its powers under Section 5(B)(2) of the Cinematograph Act. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has no quarrel about the compliance of Ext.P2 but his only apprehension is that the Local Publicity Material Screening Committee shall not decline its certificate to the petitioner's publicity material for the reason that the petitioner has no membership either in respondent 2 or 3. 7. As already seen, there is no statutory obligation on the petitioner to have membership on respondents 2 and 3, and therefore, as stated by the counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the membership in respondents 2 and 3 shall not be insisted upon and that shall not be a ground for refusing certification under Ext.P2. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp