IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _______ OF 2011 (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) IN THE MATTER OF 1. M/s. Prakash Jha Productions, 201 C-D, ] Abhishek, Off New Link Road, Andheri ] (West), Mumbai 400 053 through its ] proprietor ] 2. Prakash Jha, Producer and Director, 201 ] C-D, Abhishek, Off New Link Road, ]...Petitioners Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 -Versus- 1. Union of India ] Through Secretary ] Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ] A- Wing, Shastri Bhawan ] New Delhi-110001 ] 2. Department of Entertainment Tax ] State of Uttar Pradesh ] 3. Principal Secretary to Government ] Department of Home Affairs & Justice ] State of Punjab ] 4. Principal Secretary to Government 1 Ministry of Home Affairs ] State of Andhra Pradesh ]…Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. The Petitioners are filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashing and setting aside of the Impugned Orders issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 banning / suspending the exhibition of the Petitioners’ Film “Aarakshan” starring Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan and Deepika Padukone in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh respectively (the aforesaid directions issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall be collectively referred to as “Impugned Orders”) and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus for a direction to the Respondent No.2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the Petitioners for public exhibition of the Film in all theatres and multiplexes in their respective states. 2 2. QUESTIONS OF LAW The present petition raises the following important questions of law for general public importance: A. Whether the Central Board of Film Certification, the statutory body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (“Cinematograph Act”) once having certified the Petitioners’ Film for public exhibition in accordance with the provisions of the Cinematograph Act and Rules thereunder, could the States ban the exhibition of the film under their regulatory statutes of Cinemas? B. Whether the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 could have at all issued the Impugned Orders when the Examining Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification comprised of members who were drawn from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward castes namely Smt. L. Meena (ST Category), Smt. J.S Kamble (SC Category), Shri N.S Bansode (SC Category) and Shri R. Tanawade (OBC Category), in addition to the expert committee members including Hon’ble Justice Mr. Mukul Mudgal (Retd), Chairperson of the Censor Board Ms. Leela Samson, Mr. Pankaj Sharma and Dalit activist Ms.Rajni Tilak, had cleared the film for exhibition? C. Whether the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 could at all issue the Impugned Orders in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S. Rangarajan vs. P Jagjevan Ram & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Jagjivan 3 Ram & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 574] holding that open criticism of the Government policies and operations is not a ground for restriction on expression views even in the form of films? D. Whether the Impugned Orders issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 violates the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? E. Whether the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 could at all seek to rely upon Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India for banning the film “Aarakshan” of the Petitioner? F. Whether the Impugned Orders issued by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 could at all be issued only on the basis of the title of the movie with the presumption that the Petitioner’s Film is anti-reservation and was likely to disturb law and order? G. Whether the States can impose restrictions on a citizen’s exercise of artistic expression in a respectful manner relating to the policies of Government? H. Whether the States of the Union of India can at all restrict the exhibition of a film, once the film has been certified by the Censor Board for exhibition because otherwise it would result in an absurd situation and the States would employ their uncanalised power to restrict the exhibition of films arbitrarily in breach of fundamental rights of the producer and even the cinema goer? 4 It is submitted that the above questions arise for consideration and determination by this Hon’ble Court, which has so far not been dealt with by this Hon’ble Court. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are briefly stated hereinafter: 3.1 The Petition arises out of the Impugned Orders issued by Respondent Nos.2 to 4 respectively restricting / suspending / banning the release and screening of the Said Film in their respective states as under (the aforesaid directions of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall hereinafter be referred to as “Impugned Orders” collectively): a) Order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by Respondent No.2 under section 6 (1) of the UP Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 suspending the exhibition of the Said Film in the state of Uttar Pradesh for a period of two months from the date of Order. b) Order dated 10th August, 2011 passed by Respondent No.3 banning the screening of the Said Film in the State of Punjab until screening of the Said Film before the Committee constituted for the said purpose on 11th August, 2011. c) Order dated 11th August, 2011 passed by Respondent No.4 under Section 8 of the A.P Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 thereby suspending the exhibition of the Said Film initially for a period of one week or until a final decision is taken on 5 receipt of the report of the Committee constituted for the said purpose. 3.2 Petitioner No.2 is a reputed Indian film producer-director- screenwriter, who is most known for his political and socio- political films such as Damul (1984), Mrityudand (1997), Gangaajal (2003), Apaharan (2005) and multi starrer hit movie Rajneeti (2010). He is also the winner of ten National Film Awards including documentaries like ‘Faces After The Storm’ (1984) and ‘Sonal’ (2002). Petitioner No.2 has received immense appreciation for all his films. Infact, it is emphatically stated that the film “Damul” won the “Golden Lotus” award, which is the highest national award for a feature film, which portrays the prosecution of a dalit at the hands of a high caste landlord. The film “Mrityudand” also deals with the issue of dalit prosecution in which one of three protagonists is a dalit woman. Therefore, Petitioner No.2 has always been compassionate towards the cause of the backward dalit caste and the same is amply demonstrated through his films. 3.3 The Film uses the issue of reservation only as a landscape or backdrop on which the story and journey of the protagonist, who is the principal of an institution, is based. The Film highlights the commercialization of education system in the present society. The Film is not anti-reservation and/or anti-dalit. 3.4 The Petitioners commenced production of the Film in December, 2010. The story and screenplay of the Film was registered on 22.6.2010 by Film Writers Association in favour of Petitioner No.1. The title of the film “Aarakshan” was registered 6 by Association of Motion Pictures & T.V Programme Producers (AMPTPP) in favour of Petitioner No.1 on 11.7.2011. The title “Aarakshan” has been applied for registration before the Trademarks Registry in favour of the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the aforesaid registration certificates as and when produced. 3.5 The Film and its subject matter are being publicized since the commencement of production of the Film. The Film is scheduled for theatrical release throughout the country on 12th August, 2011. The first promo of the Film was released on internet platform on 10th June, 2011, theatrical trailor was released on 24th June, 2011 and on television platform it was released on was 10th July, 2011. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the press articles in respect of the Film and its subject matter as and when produced. 3.6 The Petitioners have expended significant amount in the sum of Rs.65 crores towards production, publicity and marketing costs of the Film. The Petitioner No.1 has created third party rights for distribution and exploitation of the Said Film. 3.7 The Petitioners had submitted their Film and 35 promos of the Film to the Central Board of Film Certification (“Censor Board”) for certification in accordance with the provisions of Cinematograph Act on 12th July, 2011. 3.8 Chairperson of Censor Board Ms. Leela Samson, in accordance with the provision of Rule 41 (4) (c) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (“Said Rules”), the Censor Board decided to set up a committee of experts who were especially 7 flown down from Delhi to examine the Film. Hon’ble Retired Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana Court Mr. Mukul Mudgal, and Dalit activist Ms.Rajni Tilak were the expert committee members who were flown from Delhi to preview the Said Film. 3.9 The Examining Committee further comprised following four members drawn from the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other backward castes: (a) Smt. L. Meena (ST Category) (b) Smt. J.S Kamble (SC Category) (c) Shri N.S Bansode (SC Category) (d) Shri R.