IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13373 of 2011 Pramod Kumar Singh (Advocate), S/O Late Prabhu Singh, R/O Vill.- Hasanpura, P.O.- Beur, P.S.- Beur, Distt.- Patna ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Public Relation Ministry, Bihar, Patna 3. The Film Censor Board through its Chairman, Mumbai, Maharastra 4. The Chairman, Film Censor Board, Mumbai, Maharastra 5. The Union of India through its Chief Secretary Broadcasting Department, New Delhi 6. Mr. Prakash Jha, Director and Producer of Film 'Arakshan' Maurya Channel Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Sri Krishnapuri, Distt.- Patna (House at A.G. Colony, North of A.G. Colony Field, P.S.- Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna) ---- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 17.8.2011 Heard the petitioner in person, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General No.1 for the State of Bihar, and Ms. Kalpana for the Union of India. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent authorities, as well as respondent no.6, banning public exhibition of the cinematograph film ‘Arakshan’, produced and directed by respondent no.6, inter alia, on the ground that public exhibition of the film will result in breach of peace. 2 We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We do not feel the necessity of calling upon the respondents to file counter affidavit in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. We are informed at the Bar that the film has already been released on 12.8.2011, today is 17.8.2011, and no breach of peace on account of public exhibition of the film in question has so far been reported in the State of Bihar. Secondly, the objectionable statements alleged by the petitioner which occur in the film, on the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, appears to be that those depict the historical background, and not the current state of affairs in the society. Thirdly, an artist has traditionally been given the liberty to produce and direct such creative works like a cinematograph film, or for that matter, every author, to imagine situations to high-light the main theme of his work so long it does not hurt the sentiments of the general public at large. Fourthly, we are in this connection reminded of the classic enunciation of law by Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the 3 State of Madras Vrs. V. G. Row, A.I.R. 1952 SC 196. Speaking for the Court the distinguished Chief Justice has made the following observations in an incisive language so characteristic of him: “13. …… If, then, the Courts in this country face up to such important and none too easy task, it is not out of any desire to tilt at legislative authority in a crusader‟s spirit, but in discharge of a duty plainly laid upon them by the Constitution. This is especially true as regards the “fundamental rights”, as to which this Court has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the „qui vive‟. ……. accompanied with the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of thinking, but for all …… (Emphasis added). Every individual is entitled to hold his views accompanied with the sobering reflection that the Constitution is equally meant for persons of the opposite view. After all there is a minority judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney and others V. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 which upheld the decision of Union of India to enforce the recommendations of the Mandal Commission. Learned Additional Advocate General has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court 4 reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574, S. Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others (Paragraph nos. 34, 35, 36, 50 and 51). Lastly, this issue has been examined in depth by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2011 (Gajanan P. Lasure & Anr. Vrs. The Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.), and has dismissed an identical writ petition by judgment dated 9.8.2011. It is a frivolous writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)