YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS. versus MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1216 · Decided: 25-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 25, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 32--State Government alleged to be 
responsible for violent protests against the screening of a controversial 
film-Writ Petition filed to ensure adequate security a"angements and for 
C directions to appoint an independent agency for investigation-New Govern-
ment f onned after fresh Assembly elections in the State-Petitioners agreed 
that some action had been taken by the new Government-Held, it is not 
necessary to continue with the petition on account of the changed political 
situation in the State and as the new Government is taking desired action 
D against the alleged offenders-Cinematograph Act, 1962. 
The film "Fire" was screened in cinema houses after the Censor 
Board of India granted certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1962. 
Strong protest arose against the script and screenplay of the film. The 
cinema houses, where the film was screened, were extensively damaged due 
E 
to violence during these protests. The petitioners along with the producer 
of the firm filed a writ petition in this Court for directions to the State 
Government to ensure adequate security arrangements for the screening 
of the film and for appointing a suitable agency to investigate into the 
matter. 
F 
The petitioners contended that the first respondent, the then Chief 
G 
Minister of the State, and his political party were responsible for the acts 
of violence. However, they agreed that after change in the political situation 
following Assembly elections in the State, some action had been taken l:.y 
the new Government. 
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : It is not necessary to continue with the writ petition and 
consider the allegations, mainly on account of the changed political situa-
tion in the State. The stand adopted by the State has changed in the new 
H political situation after the last Assembly election, which has been 
1216 
< 
1 
YlTSUFKHAN@DILIPKUMARv. MANOHARJOSHI(THOMAS,J.] 
1217 
admitted by the petitioners. The respondents are no longer in power and A 
the Government is now run by the political alignment opposed to them. · 
There is no allegation against the new Government that they are lethargic 
in taking action against the protestors resorting to vandalism during 
screening of the film. [1219-A·CJ 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 673 of B 
1998. 
(Under Article 32 of the Omstitution of India.) 
Soli J, Sorabjee, Attorney General, R.N. Trivedi, Altaf Ahmad, Ad-
ditional Solicitor Generals, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Indira Jaising, V.A. 
Mohta, Krishan Kr. Mahajan, Ms. Musharraf Chaudhry, P.H. Parekh, Mrs. 
V.D. Khanna, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Kailash Vasdev, Ashok Bhan, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, Sushma Suri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Sameer 
Parekh, Kuldip Singh, Rahul Ray, D.M. Nargolkar and Ms. Vijay Laxmi 
Menon for the appearing parties. 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
THOMAS, J. A film "Fire" appears to have ignited fire in and out of 
cineina houses wherein the film was screened for the viewers. The film 
produced by one Ms. Deepa Mehta was permitted to be screened in E 
cinema houses after the Censor Board of India granted certificate under 
the Cinematograph Act, 1962. Thereafter it was released for exhibition in 
theatres by the middle of November 1998. But hardly two weeks passed 
there arose protests from some quarters against the screening of the film 
as the protestors took strong exception to the script and screenplay thereof. 
The protests suddenly swelled up and the theatres wherein the film was 
screened became the focal points of vandalism launched by the protestors. 
They caused extensive damage to such cinema houses. Most of the cinema 
houses so attacked were located in the State of Maharashtra, and more 
particularly in the city of Mumbai. 
F 
G 
It was in the aforesaid background that 8 persons, including the 
producer of the film, have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, for appropriate and suitable directions to the authorities 
concerned for ensuring adequate security arrangements for exhibiting the 
film, and also for appointing a suitable agency to conduct investigation into H 
1218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the acts of violence which amounted to offence committed by several 
persons in the theatres of Mumbai wherein the film "Fire" 

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