LexMANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] H 'S.C.R. 111 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & ORS. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of2017) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J Constitution of India: A B Art.32 - Writ petition (PIL) - Seeking direction of the court C not to exhibit a fl Im "'Padmavati" in other countries without obtaining the requisite certificate from Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and further to direct CBI lo register an FIR ulss. 7 of Cinematograph Act 1'l11! ss. l 53A. 295, 295A, 499 and 500 !PC rlw. s 4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - 0 Held: The petition is liable ta he dismissed - As the scrutiny of the film is pending before CBFC, the prayers made by the petitioner have no foundation - As regards registration of FIR hy CBI is concerned, police has no role in respect of ss. 499 and 500 !PC - So far as other offences are concerned, no offence is made out - Thus, there is no basis to direct registration of an FIR. E Art.19(l)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression - No right is i1bsolute, but the fetters for enjoying the rights should be reasonable - The co11rt has to see what kinds of fetters are being imposed and the impact of the same - A sto1y told on celluloid or a play enacted on a stage or a novel articulated in a broad and large F canvas or epic spoken with eloquence. or a poem sung with passion or recited with rhythm has many a layer of ji·eedom of expression o/ thought that req11ired innovation, skill craftsmanship and individ11al originality - The creative instinct is respected and has the inherent protective right i.e. artistic licence.- Artistic licence has to be put on high pedestal, b11t t~e same has to be judged G objectively on case to case basis. Public Interest Litigation: The hunger for publicity or some other hidden motive should not propel one to file a PIL - They sully the temple of justice and H 111 ., .J .... 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I l S.C.R. A intend to crea(e dents in justice dispensation sysrem - Such petition should not be filed to abuse others - The presenr case is abuse of Public interest Litigation. B c D E F G H Pleadings: Constituents of pleadings - Held: When a writ petition mentions date$ af events, they constitute part of the pleadings. Nature of pleadings - Held: Neither laxity nor lack of sobriety in pleadings is countenanced in law - Rambling of irrelewmt facts indicates u11co11trol/ed and imprecise thinking, and on certain occasions reflects a maladroit design to state certain things which are meant to sensationalize the matter - It is the duty of the Court to take strong exception to such aspects in a pleading - The pleadings in the presellt case are absolutely scurrilous, vexatious and untenable in lctH'. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: l. Writ petitions arc being filed even before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which is the statutory authority, takes a decision. This is a most unfortunate situation showing how public interest litigation can be abused. The hunger for publicity or some other hidden motive should not propel one to file such petitions. They sully the temple of justice and intend to create dent~ in justice dispensation system. That apart, a petition is not to be filed to abuse others. (Para 8Jll17-GJ 2.1 When a matter is pending or going to be dealt with by the CBFC, no one who is holding any post of public responsibility should comment on how the application for certification is to be processed. Thi1t tantamounts to creating a sense of prejudice in the mind of the CBFC. The CBFC is expected to take decisions with utmost objectivity as per the provisions contained in the Cinernatograph Act, 1952, the rules framed thereunder and the guidelines. If the Court cannot prc-j udgc the matter before the CBFC takes a decision, how anyone in public office can pre-judge the issue and make public utterances. [Para 911117-H; 118-A-BJ 2.2 The Court is governed by the basic tenets of the rule of law. When the matter is pending for grant of cerUfica\ion, if MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. SANJAY LEELA BHANSALI & 113 ORS. responsible people in power or public offices comment on the A issue of certification pending consideration before the statutory authority, that is a violation of the rule of law. All concerned shall be guided by the basic premise of the rule of law and ought
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.