Revisiting Film Certification: Balancing Artistic Expression with Judicial Prudence in the "2020 Delhi" Dispute: Delhi High Court

Introduction

The present judgment, rendered on January 31, 2025 by the Delhi High Court in the consolidated matter of MOHD. REHAN @ ARSHAD PRADHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., addresses a contentious issue concerning a film entitled "2020 Delhi." The film, and in particular its trailer circulating on social media, has been alleged to distort the factual narrative of the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi. The petitioners contend that such a portrayal might not only influence public perception but may also prejudice ongoing criminal trials and electoral processes. As such, the case raises fundamental questions about the limits of artistic expression, judicial oversight over film content, and the established protocols under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Several parties have been involved in the litigation including petitioners seeking to enjoin the release of the film pending resolution of criminal proceedings, and respondents consisting of representatives of the Union of India and film producers. A notable dimension in the petitions is the contention that the film’s depiction, specifically through its promotional trailer, may cause communal discord and undermine public order.

Summary of the Judgment

In its extensive judgment, the Delhi High Court acknowledged the gravity of the complaints brought before it, particularly those asserting that the film’s trailer may skew public perception of the actual events and jeopardize the fairness of ongoing trials. The court noted that the controversy has been somewhat mitigated by the clear statements made by the film’s representatives. They clarified that the film is a fictionalized and dramatized rendition, and that no certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has yet been granted.

The Court emphasized that the CBFC’s decision, guided by Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, remains the proper avenue for determining whether the film should be approved for public screening. Furthermore, with regard to allegations of interference with judicial processes and potential electoral manipulation, the Court deemed these issues more aptly within the purview of respective authorities like the Election Commission of India. Consequently, the petitioners’ requests were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment makes significant reference to several relevant precedents which have shaped the Court’s understanding of film certification and freedom of expression.

Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta Vs. Bhansali Production and Others (2022):
The decision in this case is pivotal as it reinforces the presumption that a film's certification by the CBFC is conclusive evidence of adherence to established guidelines. The Court therefore underscored that once certification is granted following rigorous procedural compliance, judicial interference in the film’s release is unwarranted unless there is a subsequent challenge.
Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Union of India and Others (2018):
This case, which references Viacom 18 Media (P) v. Union of India (2018), was crucial in solidifying the notion that the issuance of a film certificate indicates that concerns related to public order and decency have been duly considered by the statutory authority.
Shilpesh Chaudhary and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2013) and Adv. Anoop V.R. v. Union of India (2023):
These judgments were brought into relief to highlight the importance of distinguishing between a film trailer and the full film. The Courts in these cases expressed reservations regarding conclusions drawn solely from promotional material.
Judgment in Mr. Padmanabh Shankar v. Union of India (2019):
This decision addresses the applicability of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to digital transmissions. By clarifying that internet-based exhibitions do not automatically fall within the traditional scope of public film screenings, it strengthens the argument against intrusive judicial review over online content.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centers on balancing the right to freedom of expression with the imperative to safeguard public order and ensure the proper administration of justice. The legal reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Reliance on Statutory Provisions: The Court firmly relied on Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which sets forth criteria for certification. It elucidated that the CBFC possesses the primary mandate to assess whether a film meets the guidelines for public exhibition.
Delineation of Jurisdiction: The judgment carefully demarcated the judicial limits in reviewing film certification. The Court held that judicial interference is not justified where the statutory authority (i.e., the CBFC) has not yet passed a final certification, thereby preserving the separation of powers.
Mitigating Factors in the Present Case: The producers’ clear statement that the film is fictional and accompanied by a disclaimer reduced the weight of petitioners’ objections. The Court noted that even if the trailer displayed potentially prejudicial content, the forthcoming full certification process would address these issues.
Role of Other Institutions: With regard to claims about electoral manipulation, the Court observed that such issues fall within the mandate of the Election Commission of India, reflecting a measured approach to inter-institutional boundaries.

Impact

The judgment is poised to have significant implications in the realm of film certification and freedom of artistic expression. Key potential impacts include:

Judicial Restraint: The ruling reinforces judicial deference to the statutory certification process, discouraging interventions based on preliminary or selective content (such as trailers) rather than the final, full narrative of a film.
Clarity for Filmmakers: By highlighting that disclaimers and fictionalization in film portrayals mitigate claims of defamation or interference with judicial proceedings, the judgment provides clearer guidelines for filmmakers facing similar contentions.
Institutional Boundaries: The emphasis on the roles of both the CBFC and the Election Commission underscores the need for institutional specialization in resolving disputes related to film content versus those affecting democratic processes.
Future Litigation: This judgment will likely serve as a reference point in subsequent cases where the tension between artistic freedom and the risk of prejudicing justice is at issue. It clarifies the limited circumstances under which courts may scrutinize the certification process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

One of the central legal complexities in the judgment concerns the interpretation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 in the digital age. The Court explained that:

Film vs. Trailer: A trailer, despite its widespread online circulation, is not equivalent to a full public exhibition of a film. Consequently, it does not invite the same level of statutory scrutiny under the Act.
Certification Presumption: Once the CBFC certifies a film, there is a strong presumption that all statutory guidelines and directions have been adhered to. This presumption prevents undue judicial interference and upholds the statutory process.
Digital Content and the Act: The Court clarified that digital content transmitted over the internet does not constitute "public exhibition" in the traditional sense under the Act, thereby limiting the conventional reach of film regulation.

Conclusion

This landmark judgment underscores a critical judicial reaffirmation of the established protocols for film certification, while simultaneously reconciling the imperative of artistic freedom with the need to protect public order and the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings. By deferring to the CBFC and delineating its jurisdictional boundaries, the Delhi High Court has set a significant precedent for handling disputes related to potentially prejudicial portrayals in films. The clarification regarding the non-applicability of the Cinematograph Act to merely online content further refines the scope of judicial review in such matters.

In essence, the decision serves as a guiding light for future litigation where allegations of biased representations and interference with judicial processes are raised. It highlights that robust procedural mechanisms—and the deference to statutory authorities—remain indispensable in balancing the rights of filmmakers with the concerns of public order and judicial fairness.

Revisiting Film Certification: Balancing Artistic Expression with Judicial Prudence in the "2020 Delhi" Dispute