Punjab and Haryana High Court disposes of PIL against ‘Emergency’ movie after assurance by Additional Solicitor-General

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed against the upcoming movie ‘Emergency’, following assurances by Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain that the film’s certification processes were still pending and would strictly adhere to legal guidelines.

The petition, filed by Gurinder Singh and another petitioner, had alleged that the movie contained scenes that targeted and hurt the sentiments of the Sikh community. The petitioners were seeking directions to Union of India and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the film’s certificate and to expunge or delete the offending scenes.

They also requested the court to prevent the movie’s release until it was reviewed by a special panel including eminent Sikh personalities.

During the proceedings, Jain informed the court that the certification of the film under Rule 23 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, had not yet taken place. He assured the court that “all necessary precautions, as enshrined in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Rules of 1983, including the guiding principles for certifying films, ie interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, defamation or contempt of court, shall be taken into account”.

Jain further assured that the CBFC would ensure that the contents of the movie do not hurt the sentiments of any community by adhering to the guiding principles laid down in the notification dated December 6, 1991.

Taking note of the submissions, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal observed, “This Court also finds that even after certification of the movie being made, any aggrieved person has a remedy to approach respondent-Board to place the matter before the revising committee for review of certification issued by the Board, which is to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983”.

Given the assurance by Jain and the availability of alternative remedies under the Cinematograph Act, the court decided not to issue a notice in the case. “In view of assurance given by learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents and availability of alternative remedy, this court deems it appropriate not to issue notice in this case and leave it to the petitioners to avail the remedies under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983,” the order stated.

The court expressed confidence that the assurance given by Jain would be honoured, and disposed of the petition accordingly.