Telangana High Court quashes Censor Certificate to Vyuham movie after Telugu Desam Party alleges defamation

The Telangana High Court on Monday observed that filmmakers do not have an unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party [Telugu Desam Party v The Union of India and Others].Justice Surepalli Nanda made the observation while setting aside the censor certificate issued last month to Telugu movie ‘Vyuham’ after Telugu Desam Party (TDP) moved the Court alleging that the movie was defamatory to the party and its leaders. The Court agreed with the argument and directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to reconsider its decision.“Film makers have no unbridled right to tarnish the image and reputation of any individual or political party or institution. Reputation is the only jewel that cannot be bought and is built over the years and a person who is robbed of it is no less than a destitute,” the Court said.It further remarked that reputation, an inherent component of the right to life, cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of others' right to free speech.“The right to preserve ones reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem i.e., a right against the entire world,” the single-judge added..The judgment was passed in a petition filed by Telugu Desam Party (TDP) against the certificate issued to the movie. The political party accused the filmmaker of defaming it and its leadership.After hearing detailed arguments in the case, the Court at the outset concluded that a political party would be covered under the expression ‘person’ under Section 499 (defamation) of Indian Penal Code.It noted that there is now a clear recognition of the political parties by the Constitution as distinct entities with constitutional recognition.“Thus a recognized political party is also a separate person apart from its members,” the Court said while rejecting the argument that the political party cannot allege defamation..It then examined the records and found that the Examining Committee of the CBFC had clearly indicated that the movie defamed living characters and was aimed at political unrest.However, the Revising Committee of CBFC had gone ahead and cleared the movie despite the contrary opinion of the Examining Committee. The Court noted that the Revising Committee had not mentioned reasons for clearing the movie and issuing it ‘U’ certificate (certificate for unrestricted viewing). “This Court is shocked at the style of functioning of a responsible Expert Body which is bestowed with responsibility as per the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to deal with (A) a duty of examination and certification of films as suitable for public exhibition, and (B) regulation of cinemas including their licensing.”.The High Court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s view that once a specialized body has reviewed the film in its entirety, it is deemed that the film is in accordance with the law. However, the Court further opined that the expert body in the present case had “failed in its duty” in reviewing the film in its entirety.It noted that the Examining Committee in its reasons for refusing the certification of the film had clearly indicated that the film was derogatory to certain persons which is against the guidelines.“The film depicts the real incidents happened in AP following death of ex CM YS Rajashekhar Reddy, including formation of present government of Shri YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and Skill Development Scam. It presents many political personalities in a defamatory manner,” the order stated. .The Court added that deletions and removal of objectionable content from the movie did not sufficiently address the conclusive findings of the Examining Committee.On the argument that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision of the expert body, the single-judge opined that there was a patent illegality in the decision making process of the CBFC in this case.It also found that the Centre and CBFC had ignored the complaints made by the Telugu Desam Party and not provided it with an opportunity of hearing in the matter. “This Court opines that violation of principles of natural justice will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review,” Justice Nanda said. .Concluding that the certificate for the exhibition of the movie was issued irrationally, the Court ordered the CBFC to reconsider its decision in accordance with the law within a period of three weeks.Senior Advocate Unnam Muralidhar Rao represented the petitioner.Additional Solicitor General A Narasimha Sharma represented the Centre and CBFC.Senior Advocate A Venkatesh represented the film producer while advocate Rajagopallavan Tayi represented the film director. .[Read Judgment]