Erada Gopi Chand Vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
The primary ground of challenge raised in this writ petition is to the effect that once having accorded a certification to a film under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Central Board of Film Certification, constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the said enactment, has no power to grant a “re-certification” to the film. In support of this submission, ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the statutory scheme, more particularly, Section 5A of the enactment, which for reasons of expediency, is extracted here under :
“5A. Certification of Films – (1) If, after examining a film or having it examined in the prescribed manner, the Board considers thatІ
(a) the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or, as the case may be, for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of the nature mentioned in the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 4, it shall grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film a “U” certificate or, as the case may be, a “UA” certificate; or
(b) the film is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, but is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults or, as the case may be, is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, it shall grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the film an “A” certificate or, as the case may be, a “S” and cause the film to be so marked in the prescribed manner:
Provided that the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any other person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for which certificate has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b).]
(2) A certificate granted or an order refusing to grant a certificate in respect of any film shall be published in the Gazette of India.
(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a certificate granted by the Board under this section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years.”
It is a categorical assertion of Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, ld. counsel for the petitioner that the films which were granted “A” certification, i.e. fit for public exhibition to adults only, have been illegally re-certified by the respondents as either “U/A”, i.e. unrestricted public exhibition but with parental guidance, or “U”, i.e. universal exhibition. The submission of Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, ld. counsel for the petitioner is that as a result, a film which is supposed to be only for adult viewing or one which could be viewed only under parental guidance, is enabled to be exhibited under the unrestricted category.
