AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
  • Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
  • Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition concerns the exhibition of a feature film in the State of West Bengal. A previous order of the Supreme Court dated 15 March 2019 prompted the Additional Director General & Inspector General of Police (Law & Order) and the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to circulate that order to police authorities on 18–19 March 2019 for “information and necessary compliance.” Despite this, the petitioners allege that a letter issued on 11 February 2019 by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Special Branch, Kolkata compelled theatres to halt screenings. Consequently, the film is currently being shown only in ten theatres situated outside Kolkata, leading the petitioners to return to the Court for further relief.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Joint Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Special Branch, Kolkata, acted ultra vires by directing the producer to arrange a private screening and thereby curtailing public exhibition of the film.
  2. Whether, after certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the State of West Bengal is constitutionally obliged to protect the producer’s and viewers’ fundamental right to free speech and expression by enabling uninterrupted public screening of the film.

Arguments of the Parties

State of West Bengal

  • Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated that the State has not banned the film.
  • The State has not invoked its powers under Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 or Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
  • Official communications dated 18 and 19 March 2019 were sent to senior police officials forwarding the Supreme Court’s earlier order for compliance.
  • A chart was produced showing that the film is running in ten theatres.

Petitioners

  • Filed an additional affidavit highlighting that all theatres currently screening the film are located outside Kolkata.
  • Contended that the 11 February 2019 communication from the Joint Commissioner of Police forced theatres within Kolkata to stop screenings, effectively suppressing the film’s exhibition in the city.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the Joint Commissioner of Police exceeded his legitimate authority by requiring a private screening for senior officials on the ground of potential “political law and order issues.” Such a directive, the Court observed, imposes an extra-constitutional restraint on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Once a film is certified by the CBFC, the State’s positive obligation is to protect—rather than impede—the rights of the producer, director, and prospective viewers. Administrative action that chills exhibition is impermissible, and any apprehension of law-and-order disturbance must be met with protective policing, not censorship by executive fiat.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The Supreme Court directed the Joint Commissioner of Police to withdraw forthwith his communication dated 11 February 2019. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, and the Director General of Police, West Bengal, must immediately notify all affected theatres that there is no ban on the film and ensure protection of theatre properties and audience safety. Both officers are required to file personal affidavits of compliance before the next hearing on 1 April 2019.

Implications: The decision immediately restores the film’s right to be screened within Kolkata and reinforces the principle that a CBFC certificate suffices for public exhibition absent statutory prohibition. While the order reiterates existing constitutional protections for free speech, it does not establish a new legal precedent.

    Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. And Others Petitioner(S) v. Govt. Of West Bengal And Others (S).

    1. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel states that in pursuance of the order dated 15-03-2019 WP (C) No. 306 of 2019 passed by this Court, the Additional Director General & Inspector General of Police (Law & Order), West Bengal addressed a letter dated 19 March 2019 to (i) District Superintendents of Police; (ii) Commissioners of Police (including Kolkata); (iii) Range Deputy Inspectors General of Police; (iv) Zonal Inspectors General of Police; and (v) Additional Director General of Police, South Bengal forwarding a copy of the order for “information and necessary compliance”. A similar letter dated 18 March 2019 was addressed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata for compliance with the order passed by this Court. Copies of the communications are placed on the record. Dr. Singhvi has placed a chart indicating that the film is presently running in ten theaters.

    2. Dr. Singhvi, on instructions which have been received by him, makes a specific statement that neither has the film been banned by the Government of West Bengal nor has recourse been taken to the powers contained in Section 6 of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 or Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    3. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has filed a further affidavit during the course of the hearing. Learned counsel submits that the chart which has been placed on the record by Dr. Singhvi indicates that all the theaters where the film is being screened are situated outside Kolkata.

    4. The grievance which has been urged before this Court is that in pursuance of the communication that was addressed on 11 February 2019 by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Special Branch, Kolkata, theaters where the film was being exhibited were compelled to stop screening the film. As a result, save and except for the ten or twelve theaters outside Kolkata, the film has not been screened within the limits of Kolkata.

    5. We are of the view that the Joint Commissioner of Police acted beyond the scope of his legitimate authority in directing the producer to arrange for a private screening of the film for a few senior officials, apprehending that the screening of the film may lead to “political law and order issues”.

    6. The State of West Bengal is duty bound, once the film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (“CBFC”) to take necessary measures to protect the fundamental right to free speech and expression of the producer and the director and, for that matter, of the viewers to see the film unrestrained by extraconstitutional restraints.

    7. We accordingly, direct that the Joint Commissioner of Police shall forthwith withdraw the communication that was addressed by him to the producer of the film on 11 February 2019.

    8. We also direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal and the Director General of Police to immediately issue communications to all the theaters where film was being originally screened intimating them that there is no ban on the screening of the film, and that the State shall, in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 15 March 2019, take necessary steps for protecting the properties of the theater owners and the safety of the members of the public who wish to view the film.

    9. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed in the above terms on or before the next date of hearing both by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal as well as by the Director General of Police, West Bengal personally and we will hold them accountable to ensure compliance with the above direction.

    10. List on 1 April 2019.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. And Others Petitioner(S) v. Govt. Of West Bengal And Others (S).
    (Mar 25, 2019)