Abrogation of rights of producer by State not valid

Sejal Makkad | Amity Law School, Amity University Chhattsigarh | 5th June 2020

Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of West Bengal 

Facts

1. The petitioner was a film producer who produces Bengali films in the state of West Bengal.
2. The petitioner produced a film named “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” (‘Future Ghosts’). The film depicts the politicians as political satire about ghosts, who seek to find meaning through rescuing the marginalized and the obsolete.
3. The film got all the essential certificates from various departments and also the Censor Board also gave the approval for release of the film.
4. Prior the date of release the petitioner received the phone call from the police and was communicated that his film may create “Political law and Order issues”.
5. The film was released as per the date mentioned in publication certificate. 
6. On the next day of release, the film was being removed from the cinemas as per the instructions from higher authorities. 
7. All the tickets were refunded causing a huge loss to the producers. 
8. The petitioner aggrieved from such act filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for protection of his fundamental rights.

Issues

1. Whether the state and its agencies had resorted to “extra constitutional means to abrogate the fundamental rights of the producer, director and the viewers.

Judgement

Court held that since a film has been duly certified by CBFC, it shall not open to any authority either of the State Government or otherwise to issue any kind of formal or informal directions or orders preventing the producer from having the film screened. Such actions of the State directly impinge upon the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.”

Therefore, the continuing of screening was allowed and also held that the state and its agencies have resorted to extra constitutional means to abrogate the fundamental rights of the producer, director and the viewers. By giving directions to theaters to remove the film without following any powers conferred under West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1954 or the Cinematograph Act 1952.

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances that State’s interference with the freedom of speech and expression, the Court held that there was a violation of the rights of the Petitioners under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court even recognized the importance of remedy under public law to ensure adequate compensation for this violation of Fundamental Rights. The Respondents were directed to pay compensation quantified at Rs. 20 lakhs by the Court, in addition to Rs. 1 lakh as legal costs.