AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.—Petitioner, claiming to be a human right activist, has approached this Court with this public interest litigation so
as to restrain the respondents from exhibiting the film titled ""Slumdog Millionaire"" in the various cinema houses in the State or any other audio/video
channels, CDs., D.V.Ds. or any other means of display or making any advertisement for sale of the film and also for other reliefs. When the matter
came up for admission, we directed Shri Harin Raval, Additional Solicitor General of India to get instructions from the Censor Board with regard
to various allegations made in the petition. Learned Counsel made submissions on the basis of instructions received by him from the Censor Board.
Shri C.M. Ankolekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that film titled ""Slumdog Millionaire"" was produced by two foreign
nationals, on a theme written by another foreign national. Film was picturised in the slums of Dharavi in the city of Mumbai exposing to the entire
world the living condition of slum dwellers, thereby lowering the image of the country. Petitioner stated that the contents of the film as well as its
title is highly defamatory to slum dwellers and it hurts their sentiments. Picturing them and addressing them as ""Slumdog"" is an affront to human
dignity. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the film is going to be exhibited all over the world, including the developed countries which
would give a wrong picture of India as a nation and would have adverse effect on its otherwise booming economy. Learned Counsel also
submitted that the title of the film also violates Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for brevity ""the Act"") as it is against the interest of the
country, public order, decency and morality, and defamatory to the people living in the slums of Mumbai.
Shri Harin P. Rayal, learned Counsel appearing for the Central Government, on instructions of the Censor Board, submitted that the Censor
Board has viewed the film, including its title ""Slumdog Millionaire"", keeping in view the provisions of Cinematograph Act and the Rules. Counsel
submitted that title ""Slumdog Millionaire"" does not define any public decency or morality as it is not aimed at slum dwellers in general. Learned
Counsel submitted in the context of the film, title signifies the bent of mind of the show host who has scant regard for a contender, who comes from
an underprivileged background. Counsel pointed out that the contender who is referred to as slumdog in fact is the hero of the film and comes out
victorious at the end. Learned Counsel also submitted that one of the basic guidelines of the certification is - film has to be seen in its entirety from
the point of view of its overall impact as stated in guideline 3(i) of Section 5B of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that guideline 3(ii) issued u/s
5B of the Act has been scrupulously followed in the light of the period depicted in the film, the contemporary standards of the country and the
people to which the film relates. Learned Counsel submitted that by no stretch of imagination, can one assume that the film is derogatory to the
slum dwellers, on the other hand they are the main protagonists in the film and are not portrayed as being inferior to anyone.
We may before examining various contentions raised by the Counsel for either side, examine the legal principles, which have to be borne in mind
when a challenge is made that the exhibition of the film would affect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its security, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of Court or is likely to incite commission of any offence.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens right to freedom of speech and expression, which means the right to express one''s
opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner, which also includes the freedom of communication and the right to
propagate or publish opinion, and communication of ideas through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie. Of course, to strike a balance
between the liberty guaranteed and the social interests, this right has to be exercised subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interests of the
community and the country set out under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a comprehensive piece of legislation enacted to make provision for certification of cinematograph films for public
exhibition and for regulating exhibition by means of cinematograph. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution of Board of Film Censors and
Section 4 speaks of examination of films. Before exhibiting a film, it has to be certified by the examining committee and if it is not approved, it is
further reviewed by a reviewing committee u/s 5. Section 5A of the Act states that if, after examining a film or having it examined in the prescribed
manner, the Board considers that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, such a certificate is given, which is known as ""U"" certificate.
Section 5B provides for principle of guidelines in certifying films and it is pertinent to note that Article 19(2) has been practically read into Section
5B(1). Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 8 of the Act, has framed Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Rule 11
of the Rules confers power on the Board of Film Certification to determine the principle to be observed in certifying films. Board is also
empowered to take such steps as it thinks fit to assess public reaction to the films and for that purpose the Board may hold symposium or seminars
of film critics, film writers, community leaders and persons engaged in the film industry, or such other persons and also undertake local or national
surveys to study the impact of various kinds of films on the public mind.
Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 5B(2) of the Act, has also prescribed certain guidelines for Censor Board to follow.
The Board shall ensure that the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society, artistic expression and
creative freedom are not unduly curbed and censorship is responsible to social change. Guideline 2 requires the Board to ensure that anti-social
activities such as violence are not glorified or justified, the modus operandi of criminal or other visuals or words likely to incite the commission of
any offence are not depicted, pointless or avoidable scenes of violence, cruelty and horror are not shown, human sensibilities are not offended by
vulgarity, obscenity and depravity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation is not called in question, the security of the State is not jeopardised or
endangered, friendly relations with foreign states are not strained and lastly the public order is not endangered. Guideline 3 also requires the Board
to ensure that the film is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact and is examined in the light of contemporary standards of
the country and the people to whom the film relates.
The impact of the above provisions was elaborately considered by the Apex Court in various decisions. Reference may be made to the
judgments in the cases of K.A. Abbas Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Ramesh Dalal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , S.
Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjevan Ram and Others, and Bobby Art International, etc. Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon and others, In K.A. Abbas v. Union of
India (supra), the Chief Justice Hidayatullah, speaking for the Court stated as follows:
Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us
determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set out for our censors must make a substantial allowance in
favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. We must not
look upon such human relationships as banned in toto and forever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society.
The requirements of art and literature include within themselves a comprehensive view of social life and not only in its ideal form and the line is to
be drawn where the average moral man begins to feel embarrassed or disgusted at a naked portrayal of life without the redeeming touch of art or
genius or social value. If the depraved begins to see in these things more than what an average person would, in much the same way, as it is
wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman''s legs in everything, it cannot be helped. In our scheme of things ideas having redeeming social or artistic
value must also have importance and protection for their growth.
In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the question whether the certification given to the
film ''Bandit Queen'' has got the effect of violating Section 5B of the Act. Film ''Bandit Queen'' was the story of a village-born female child
becoming a dreaded dacoit. The film was based on the true story of Phoolan Devi, who was married off at the childhood to a man old enough to
be her father. She was beaten and raped by him, she was tormented by the boys of the village and beaten by them when she foiled the advances of
one of them, in a village Panchayat called, she was blamed for attempting to entice the boy who belonged to a higher caste, and ultimately, she has
to leave the village. She was gang-raped, stripped naked, paraded and made to fetch water from the village well under the gaze of the villagers, but
no one came to her rescue. In that case, the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act granted the film an ""A"" certificate, subject to certain
conditions. When a writ petition against order of the Tribunal was filed, the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the certificate
granted to the film and directed the Censor Board to cancel the ""A"" certificate granted to it after excisions and modifications in accordance with the
order. The view was concurred by the Division Bench. Reversing the judgment of the Division Bench, the Apex Court held as follows:
We think that High Court ought not to have entertained the first respondent''s writ petition impugning the grant of the certificate based as it was
principally upon the slurs allegedly cast by the film on the Gujjar community. We find that the judgment under appeal does not take due note of the
theme of the film and the fact that it condemns rape and the degradation of and violence upon women by showing their effect upon a village child,
transforming her to a cruel dacoit obsessed with wreaking vengeance upon a society that has caused her so much psychological and physical hurt,
and that the scenes of nudity and rape and the use of expletives, so far as the Tribunal had permitted them, were in aid of the theme and intended
not to arouse prurient or lascivious thoughts but revulsion against the perpetrators and pity for the victim.
Petitioner''s challenge is primarily against the title of the film ""Slumdog Millionaire"", which according to the petitioner is highly derogatory, casts
a slur on the slum-dwellers. Contention in our view has to be judged on the various principles discussed by us hereinbefore, based on the various
decided cases of the Apex Court. Hindi version of the film was witnessed by one of us (Chief Justice), and the theme and the content of the film
will go a long way to judge whether the title of the film ""Slumdog Millionaire"" would in any way violate Section 5B of the Act or the Rules or the
guidelines laid by the Central Government.
The ""Slumdog Millionaire"" portraits the story of a young man from the slums of Mumbai who appears on a game show and excels making the
onlookers and millions of viewers spell-bound, in that process arouse suspicion of cheating, the boy thwarts the moves of the host to misguide him,
and in that process becomes the darling of millions of viewers, and ultimately, becomes a millionaire. Picture exposes the hidden talent of the slum
dwellers and their capacity and ability of observation. Film though depicts the dark side of Mumbai slums, their living conditions, the police access,
life in red-light area and so on, but still overcoming all those hurdles, the slum boy comes out victorious in a game show by a shear show of
brilliance. The film also spreads a message that the slum-boys have the ability and capacity of grasping and understanding things taking place
around them and without any formal education, can reach at the top.
We shall not entertain an orthodox or conservatory view when we see a film of this nature. We must give a vast area of creative art to interpret
true life and society. The title of the film has to be judged on the theme of the film and the manner in which it has been directed and exhibited in the
public view. We fail to see how the word ""Slumdog"" is offensive or defamatory to the slum dwellers when we understand the theme and the
settings in the movie, in a wider spectrum. The complaint is that people who live in slums are characterised as slumdogs. When we look at the film
as a whole, the Slumdog means underdog from the slums. The film is exhibited in Hindi language as well. In Hindi, Slumdog means ""Gudari Ka
Lal"", which means a jewel in rags as per the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary. Therefore, the slum-boy who has won the game show and became
the millionaire is considered to be a jewel in rags. The title ""Slumdog Millionaire"" in our view does not defy any public decency or morality and it is
not aimed at slum dwellers in general and also not defamatory. Film ""Slumdog Millionaire"" belies the traditional belief that slum-dwellers are
underdogs. Slum-boy brings to the cognitive perception, the forms of understanding and observation of reality. Slum-boy could exhibit pure form
of thinking enabling him to understand the creative and variable manifestations. Film has also furnished us with tools and inspiration needed to cope
with momentous problems faced by slum dwellers, poverty, police access, blinding of boys and so on. The film also exhibits values such as truth,
goodness, respect for womanhood, love and affection and so on. When we look at the title in the context of the theme of film, the contender who
has been described as a slumdog comes out as a hero of the film picturised at the end. Further, the slum boy whether he is called as an underdog
or slumdog is the main protagonist in the film and is not portrayed as inferior to anyone, but has been highlighted and depicted as a jewel from the
slums of Mumbai, who has risen to win a fortune. We therefore, hold that the tile ""Slumdog Millionaire"" is not intended to deny any public decency
or morality or defamatory to slum-dwellers.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.