BOBBY ART INTERNATIONAL versus OM PAL SINGH HOON AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BOBBY ART INTERNATIONAL 
v. 
OM PAL SINGH HOON AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1996 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, C.J., S.P. BHARUf".:HA AND B.N. KRIPAL, JJ.] 
Cinematograph Act, .1952 : Section 5-B. 
Filmr;-Certification of-Held : Test is Film scenes should advance the 
C message which the film intends to convey-A film that depicts consequences 
of social evil can show the social evil itself which must be sufficient for the 
purpose of the film-Guidelines issued by Central Government under S. 
5-B(2) are broad standards and should not be read as a statute-Guidelines 
require that human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or 
depravity, degrading or denigrating women-Ulhere the theme of the film is to 
D condemn rape and degradation of and violence upon women, scenes of nudity 
and rape and use of expletives in aid of the theme to arouse revulsion against 
the perpetrators and pity for the victim, permissibl&-Cinematograph (Cer-
tification) Rules, 1983, R 24-Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 19(2 ). 
E 
Section 5-C-Film certification-Grant of Appeal againsHnteiference 
by High Court-Held: Appellate Tribunal had viewed film in true perspective 
and, in compliance with requirements of guidelines, granted '.A' certifi-
cate-High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction ought not to have inteifered 
with view of Tribunal-Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 226. 
p 
"Bandit Queen" is the story of a village child exposed from an early 
age to the brutality and lust of man. Married off to a man old enough to 
be her father she was beaten and raped. The village boys made advances, 
which she repulsed but the village panchayat found her guilty of enticement 
of a village boy because he was of high caste and she had to leave the 
village. She was arrested and, in the police station, filthily abused. Those 
G who stood bail for her did so to satisfy their lust. She was kidnapped and 
raped. During an act of brutality the rapist was shot dead and she found 
an ally in her rescuer. With his assistance she beat up her husband, 
violently. Her rescuer was shot dead by one whose advances she had 
spurned. She was gang-raped by the rescuer's assailant and his ac-
H complices and they humiliated her in the sight of the village, a hundred 
136 
BOBBY ARTINTERNA110NAL v. O.P.S. HOON 
137 
men standing in a circle around the village well and watching her being A 
stripped naked and made to walk around the circle and then made to draw 
water. And not one of the villagers helped her. To avenge herself upon her 
persecutors, she joined a dacoits' gang and killed twenty Thakurs of the 
village. Ultimatdy, she surrendered aud was in jail for a number of year. 
The film was presented for certification to the Censor Board under 
the Cinematograph Act 1952. The Examining Co1nmittee of the Censor 
Board referred it to the Revising Committee under Rule 24(1) of the 
Cinematographic (Certification) Rules, 1983. The Revising Committee 
recommended that the film be granted an 'A' certificate, subject to certain 
excisions and n1odifications. 
Aggrieved by the decision of the Revising Committee, an appeal was 
filed under Section SC of the Cinematograph Act before the Appellate 
Tribunal. The Tribunal comprised of a Chairman, a retired Judge of High 
Court, and three ladies as members. Upon the basis or a unanimous order 
B 
c 
of the Tribunal, the film was granted an 'A' certificate. thereafter, the D 
respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash 
the certificate granted to the film and to restrain its exhibition in India. 
The respondent contended that though audiences were led to believe that 
the film depicted the character of "a former queen of ravines" also known 
as Phoolan Devi, the depiction was "abhorr~nt and unconscionable and a 
slur on the womanhood of India" and that the respondent and his com· 
munity had been depicted in a most depraved way specially in the scene of 
rape by B, which scene was "suggestive of the moral depravity of the Guijar 
community". A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition 
and quashed the certificate granted to the film Having viewed the film, a 
Division Bench of the High Court examined it in regard to. three aspects 
viz. the frontal nudity scene relating to the incident of fetching water from 
the well which ran for two minutes, the scene sho"ing the naked posterior 
of the rapist and use of expletives. Overall, the Division Bench was of the 
view that the Tribunal's order wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.