LYCA Production Pvt. Ltd. vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner who produced a Tamil feature film by name ""Kathi"", has come up with the above writ petition

seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant protection so as to enable them to have their name exhibited as the

Producer of the film in the prints as well as the publicity material of the film.

Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents.

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner produced the Tamil feature film ""Kathi"". It was slated for release on the date of Deepavali,

which fell on 22.10.2014. But after arrangements had been made for the release of the film world wide, a few organisations and political parties

issued threats that they would not permit the screening of the film. This was on the ground that the petitioner which is a private limited company, is

managed and controlled by persons who are very close to the President of Sri Lanka and that therefore, the film deserved to be boycotted.

However, the petitioner went ahead and made arrangements for the release the film. Immediately, a group of hooligans attacked two Cinema

Houses in Chennai on 20.10.2014 resulting in two criminal complaints being registered, one in Crime No. 2012/2014 on the file of the D-2 Anna

Salai Police Station and another in Crime No. 2335/2014 on the file of the E-2 Royapettah Police Station. Though the Government took prompt

action, the petitioner feared serious consequences and hence the petitioner appears to have given a letter to one Mr. Velmurugan of an organisation

known as Thamizhar Vazhvurimai Katchi and its associates, agreeing and undertaking to remove their name from the prints as well as the

advertisements. It appears that thereafter, none of the groups indulged in any protest, peaceful or violent. As a result, the film was released

simultaneously in about 500 theatres, with the blessings of those groups.

After ensuring the smooth release of the film and also after ensuring the safe return of their investment, the petitioner gave a representation dated

07.11.2014 to the Home Secretary as well as the Director General of Police, seeking adequate police protection so that their name could be

displayed in the film as well as in the publicity materials. Since there was no response to the representation, the petitioner is before this Court.

The Additional Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents. It is claimed by the

Respondents in the counter affidavit that due to a series of protests staged by a few organisations and political parties and due to the attack on the

two theatres by some miscreants leading to the filing of two criminal complaints, the petitioner themselves entered into a compromise with the

protesters. Under the compromise, the petitioner agreed to remove their name from the publicity materials and in the film. Therefore, the

Respondents claim that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. The Respondents also claim that the film was screened in more than 510

theatres in Tamil Nadu and that it is not possible to provide protection in all theatres. The Respondents rely upon the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in Rama Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, .

I have carefully considered the above submissions.

The Respondents have also produced the copy of the letter of undertaking given by the petitioner to remove their name from the publicity

materials and the film.

The letter of undertaking given by the petitioner on 21.10.2014, is actually addressed to one Mr. Velmurugan of an organisation known as

Thamizhar Vazhvurimai Katchi and its associates. It is stated by the petitioner in the said letter that accepting the genuine demands made by the

said organisation and respecting their sentiments, the petitioner had agreed to remove their name from the film and the publicity materials.

But the said letter of undertaking, in my considered view, cannot be relied upon by the Respondents. As a matter of fact, the Respondents

cannot grant a seal of approval to such letters of undertaking, as the same may tantamount to the creation of the Super-Censor Board. Once a film

is certified for screening by the Central Board of Film Certification, no group, organisation or association can demand further censoring, on the

ground that something in the film hurts the religious, communal, racial or linguistic sentiments of someone or the other. The action of any group or

organisation demanding the removal of any dialogue or scene or sub-title or title from a film which is already certified for release by the Central

Board of Film Certification, would tantamount to a blackmail. The Respondents should not permit such blackmail to succeed. If it is allowed to

succeed, it would automatically lead to extortion and the surrender of the power of governance and the rule of law to a few intolerant people.

Ours is such a huge country with enormous amount of diversity that anything said or done can always be projected as hurting the sentiments of

someone or the other. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Respondents upon the letter of undertaking extracted from the petitioner by an

organisation under threat of violence, is quite unfortunate.

It is ironic that when these very same organisations try to champion some cause which is dear to their heart, but which is not acceptable to the

Government or to the party in power, leading to the rejection of their request for holding demonstrations, organising protest meetings etc., these

groups come to Court making a big hue and cry about their own fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It demonstrates how hypocritical people have become, apart from being intolerant. It is unfortunate that Article 19(1)

(a) is used as a tool, by the oppressor as well as the oppressed, depending upon which side of the table they are. It has become just a matter of

convenience for people to use it in their favour whenever they want it and to demand the denial of the same to others, with whom they do not see

eye-to-eye.

In Sony Pictures Releasing of India Ltd. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Union of India (UOI) and Central Board of Film Certification, , which

concerned an English feature film by name Da Vinci Code, Prabha Sridevan, J pointed out that persons who object to a film are not compelled by

anyone to see the film. The learned Judge quoted Nani Palkhivala to the following effect ""India has had an unrivalled tradition of religious freedom

and tolerance. That tradition was born of the consciousness that truth can never be the monopoly of any one sect or creed"".

In Prakash Jha Productions and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , an argument was raised that it is not possible for the State to

provide police protection and that a law and order problem is likely to arise. The same was rejected by the Supreme Court, by placing reliance

upon an earlier decision. In para 27, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the State and, therefore, the State shall maintain it effectively and potentially. Once the

Board has cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the

present case. As held in Union of India Vs. K. M. Shankarappa, it is the responsibility of the State Government to maintain law and order.

Therefore, the second objection of the Respondents is also liable to be rejected, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Jha.

It is true, that the petitioner could have come to Court even in the first instance, without surrendering to the dictates of the aforesaid

organisation. But discretion became the better part of valour and economic compulsions overtook individual liberties. Therefore, I cannot throw

out the writ petition, by granting judicial approval to a letter of undertaking obtained by an organisation from the petitioner, under coercion.

There is also one more aspect which is interesting. The organisations which objected to the release of the film ""kathi"" on the ground that the

producers are related to the President of Sri Lanka, have no objection to the petitioner receiving the collections from the film. They do not even

have an objection to the people seeing the film and making it a big hit. Newspapers reported that the film received record collections. It shows that

neither the Censor Board nor the people of Tamilnadu had any objection to the film as such. The organisation to whom the petitioner gave a letter

of undertaking could not convince the people of Tamilnadu to reject the film. On the contrary, they themselves were happy with a mere removal of

the name of the petitioner on screen, though not off screen. Therefore the protest itself was not based on any ideology.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to provide protection to the petitioner to enable them to

have their name exhibited in the film and in the publicity materials. If anyone indulges in any threat, the police may take stern action against them.

There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2014 is closed.