IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17599 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAJASEKHARAN.R., KARAKATTU RAJ BHAVAN, ALA-P.O., CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL REGIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, KALA BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 014. 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND BOARD CASTING, NEW DELHI. 110 001. 3. DR.LEENA PARAMESWARAN, (PROPRIETRESS, C.B.CREATIONS), SANKARANARAYANAM, KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM.P.O., PIN-690 533, KAYAMKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17599 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.06.2011. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 17599 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “a. direct respondents 1 and 2 to revoke the certificate issued to the 3rd respondent for publicly exhibiting the Malayalam movie KANAKOMBATHU by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. b. direct respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action to remove the portions of the movie which are defamatory to the medical fraternity as a whole which is described specifically in paragraph 4 of the writ petition by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. c. direct respondent No.2 to consider and pass orders in Exhibit.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.” 2. The substance of the writ petition is that a film titled as “Kanakombath” contains certain dialogues, making derogatory remarks against the medical profession as a whole. In support of the allegation, the petitioner extracted some of the W.P.(C) No.17599 of 2011 -:2:- statements made in the movie by some character or the other. The statements, no doubt, are critical about the medical education, the institutions imparting medical education and the medical profession. 3. The petitioner seeks reliefs such as the one sought in the writ petition on the ground that under Section 5B of the Cinematography Act, 1952, the authority competent to grant the certificate of eligibility for screening a movie is obliged to take note of the statements, which according to the petitioner, are defamatory to the medical profession and ought not to have granted fitness certificate for the exhibition of the movie. 4. In view of such a belief, the petitioner, it appears, made certain representations before the Government of India praying for withdrawal of the certificate issued by the censoring authorities. A copy of the complaint is filed as Ext.P1 to the writ petition which is dated 27.06.2011, whereas the writ petition itself came to be filed on 28.06.2011. The petitioner believes that the “inaction” of the Government, W.P.(C) No.17599 of 2011 -:3:- within 24 hours of the submission of his representation, is objectionable and is also of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have permitted the 3rd respondent to continue the exhibition of the abovementioned movie. 5. Whether a movie is fit enough to be exhibited in public or not is a matter which is entrusted to the judgment and wisdom of a statutory body created under the Cinematographic Act, popularly known as the 'Censor Board'. Such a body obviously granted the certificate of fitness for the exhibition of the movie. The opinion of individuals such as the petitioner cannot by themselves be substituted for the opinion of the statutory body, unless it is demonstrated that the opinion of the statutory body is so perverse or contrary to some established principle of law. The question whether a particular statement or a set of statements made in a performing art tantamount to a permissible criticism falling within the ambit of freedom of the speech guaranteed to the citizens of this country or exceeds the permissible limit is no doubt a matter which requires a judicious decision making process. Such a W.P.(C) No.17599 of 2011 -:4:- decision making process is primarily entrusted to a statutory body under the Cinematography Act and the said body opined that the material which is being objected to by the petitioner is within the permissible limits of the freedom of expression. Unless it is demonstrated before this Court that such an opinion is absolutely unjustified in law or perverse, this Court will not substitute its opinion to the opinion of the statutory bodies in these matters. Even otherwise, the statements which are extracted in the body of the writ petition, which according to the petitioner, are objectionable statements, in our view, do not exceed the fundamental right of freedom of speech guaranteed to the citizens of this country. If such statements are to be found objectionable on the ground that they are in excess of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, the celebrated work “The Doctor's Dilemma” of Sri.George Bernard Shaw should have been banned long back in this country. Hyperbole is a part of artistic expression. Debate on public issues is required to be uninhibited, and some times may well be even caustic and unpleasant. W.P.(C) No.17599 of 2011 -:5:- In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. The same is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb