04 September 2024 Information Technology Act >> Intellectual Property Rights  

In a recent legal development in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. vs Central Board of Film Certification & Another, a writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to release the certification for the film "EMERGENCY," which had already been issued but was withheld from the filmmakers. The petition, brought forth by the film’s co-producers, argues that despite receiving confirmation from the CBFC that the film had been certified and the certificate number had been assigned, the actual document was not handed over. The refusal to release the certificate was reportedly due to objections from certain Sikh community groups regarding the film’s trailer.

Facts:

The certification process for "EMERGENCY" began on July 8, 2024, when one of the co-producers submitted an application via the e-cinepramaan portal. On August 1, 2024, the CBFC scheduled a screening and subsequently communicated on August 8 that the film was suitable for "Unrestricted Public Exhibition" with specific modifications. The co-producers complied with the required modifications by August 14, 2024. On August 29, 2024, the CBFC confirmed via email that the film’s CD had been sealed successfully and that the certification had been generated, providing a certificate number. However, when the co-producers went to collect the certificate, they were informed that it would not be handed over due to objections from certain groups within the Sikh community. Despite a legal notice sent by the co-producers on September 2, 2024, demanding the certificate, the CBFC did not respond, leading to the current writ petition.

Legal Arguments and Court Observations:

Mr. Dhond, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that once the CBFC communicated that the certificate had been generated, the certification process was complete and the certificate should be released. He contended that under the Cinematograph Act, any grievances regarding film certification should be addressed through legal remedies, not by withholding the certificate. In contrast, Dr. Chandrachud, Counsel for the CBFC, maintained that the certification was not finalized until signed by the CBFC Chairperson. He cited a recent order from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which directed the CBFC to consider additional objections filed by a local Sikh group before finalizing the certification. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had permitted the Sikh group to file a comprehensive representation and instructed the CBFC to consider these objections expeditiously. Dr. Chandrachud argued that honoring this court order took precedence and that the CBFC could not be directed to release the certificate without addressing the objections first.

Court’s Decision:

The court acknowledged that the certification process had progressed to a stage where emails confirmed the generation of the certificate. However, it refrained from issuing a directive to release the certificate immediately, citing the need to respect the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order. The court observed that compelling the CBFC to release the certificate without considering the objections might violate judicial propriety and conflict with the order of another court. Instead, the court instructed the CBFC to expedite its review of the objections filed by the Sikh group and make a decision regarding the certificate by September 18, 2024. The matter will be revisited on September 19, 2024, for further consideration.

Conclusion:

This case highlights the complexities of film certification in the face of public objections and the interplay between different judicial orders. As the CBFC navigates these objections, the film's release remains in limbo, pending final resolution and compliance with the legal and procedural requirements.

  Cinematograph Act, 1952