RAMESH S/O CHOTALAL DALAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 16-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH·S/0 CHOTALAL DALAL 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 1988 
• 
ISABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Cinematograph Act, 1952-Sections 3, 4, 4A, 5 and 5A to 5D-
T.V. Serial 'Tamas'-Screening of-Censor Board approving exhibi-
tion of film-Unanimous approval of examining committee to be given 
full weight-Two High Court Judges saw film and approved the same--
No reason to differ from conclusions. 
Constitution of India-Screening of serial-Whether an alleged 
violation of Articles 21and25 of the Constitution. 
A 
B 
c 
" + 
The Serial titled "Tamas", based on a book written by Sree 
Bhisham Sahni, was being screened on the T.V. Four of its episodes had D 
already been shown when the petitioner moved this Conrt under Article 
' 
32 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition and any other appro-
priate writ restraining its further screening and to enforce petitioner's 
fundamental rights under Articles 2 t and 25 and for declaring the 
screening or televising of "Tamas" as violative of section SB of the 
Cinematograph Act, 1952. 
E 
Earlier, a writ had been admitted in the High Court of Bombay 
and a single learned Judge granted interim stay. On appeal, the Divi-
sion Bench, after seeing the complete serial, vacated the stay. Special 
leave petition has been filed against that judgment. 
·'J 
Serial 'Tamas' takes us to a historical past-unpleasant at times, 
r but revealing and instructive. In those years which 'Tamas' depicts, a 
.human tragedy of gj'eat dimension took place in this sub-continent 
though 40 years ago-which has left a lasting damage to the Indian 
psyche. 
'Tamas' depicts the Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tension he-
y 
fore the partition of India and the killings and looting that took place. 
F 
G 
According to the Division Bench of the High Court, the serial inter alia 
depicts how communal violence was generated by fundamentalists and 
extremists in both communities, how innocent persons were duped into 
serving the ulterior purpose of fundamentalists, and how extremist ele-
H 
1011 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
ments infused tension and hatred for their own ends. 
The petitioner's contentions are: (t) The exhibition of the serial is 
against public order and is likely to incite the peQple to indulge in the 
commission Qf llffences and is therefore violative of section SB( t\ of the 
Cinematograpb Act, 1952 and destructive of principles embodied under 
B 
Article 25; (2) Its presentation is likely to promote feelings of enmity, 
hatred or ill-will among different religious groups and is prejudicial to 
communal harmony and national integration, and is therefore an off-
ence under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) Events have been 
depicted and characters portrayed in a manner that would provoke and 
instigate people of all ages exposed to it, who will fail to grasp the 
message if any behind the serial; (4) Truth in its naked form may not 
C 
always and in all circumstances be desirable to be told or exhibited, and 
(5) The Judges of the High Court have viewed the mm from their own 
point of view but the average persons in the country are not as sober 
and experienced as the Judges of the High Court. 
D 
The respondents on the other hand, urge that all the appropriate 
authorities have considered the film suitable for unrestricted public 
exhibition and the only question is whether the film bas been misjudged 
or wrongly judged and allowed to be exhibited or serialised on a wrong 
approach. This film indubitably depicts violence. That violence between 
the communities took place before the pre-partition days is a fact and it 
E 
is the truth. 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court, 
HELD: ( t) The Cinematograpb Act itself contains several 
provisions to ensure the fuliIJment of the conditions laid down in sec-
I t· ,
F 
tion SB, and also tii ensure that any film which is likely to offend the 
religious susceptibilities of the people is not screened for public exhi- __J/ 
bition. [1021G-H] 
1 
(2) On the aforesaid statute, as it presently stands, the procedure 
for grant of certificate of exhibition to a film is quite elaborate, and the 
G 
unanimous approval by the examining committee must be given full 
weight and the Court would be slow to interfere with the conclusion of a 
body specially constituted for this purpose. [ 1022C-D] 
(3) The correct approach in judging the effect of exhibition of a 
film or of readinjl a book is to judge from the standa

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