FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

The Case came as a writ petition filed under article 32 by the appellant, the producer of the
film, Bhobishyoter Bhoot, the Bengali movie is a social and political satire depicting ghosts
resueing the marginalized and the obsolete so that they become relevant in the future, the film
had a UA certification granted by the CBFC on 19th November 2018. The Petitioner were
asked by the State Intelligence Unit to arrange a screening of the film for the senior official of
the department before the release of the film claiming that the contents of the film may lead
to political law and order issues. On receiving such notice the petitioner informed the Joint
Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Kolkata that his office does not have the power to prior
screening as sought by the letter by them. After that the petitioner proceeded with the release
of the film. Within a day of its release in Kolkata and a few districts of West Bengal an
overwhelming majority of the exhibitors abruptly took the film off their screens on 16
February 2019 without a communication from the producers.
The petitioner argued that the State of West Bengal is misusing police power and acting as a
‘super-censor’ sitting atop the CBFC and is violating the Petitioners’ fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14,19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution through the
Kolkata Police which is under the Department of Home.

JUDGEMENT:

The statutory authority to certify a film for public exhibition is vested in the CBFC under the
provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952. . The police are not in a free society the self-
appointed guardians of public morality. In the present case, the court was of the view that
once the film is certified and the given clearance by the central board for its release, the state
does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the release of the film rather, it is the duty of the
State to see that law and order is maintained and movie runs peacefully in the theatres, the
court pointed out the government has tried to curb the freedom of speech and expression of
the producers, directors and the actors, also even the rights of audience has been affected as
 they were deprived from watching the movie, the court thus ordered the respondents to pay
the petitioners a sum of Rs. twenty lakh as a remedy.

ANALYSIS:

Justice DY Chandrachud throughout the Judgement has emphasized on the importance of any
form of art as an essential element for a healthy democracy, and various judgement have been
cited upholding the right of freedom of speech and expression of the indivisuals, in F.A Picture
International v. Central Board of Film Certification Mumbai, where the film was in scrutiny
for the resemblance of the characters to some people in power, the Court noted:
“those who hold important positions must have shoulders which are broad
enough to accept with grace a critique of themselves. Critical appraisal is the
cornerstone of democracy and the power of the film as a medium of
expression lies in its ability to contribute to the appraisal."
In the present case, the Supreme Court has granted remedy in form of monetary compensation,
the power of the Supreme Court to deviate from the traditional concepts and to formulate new
rules for relief for the violation of Fundamental rights is envisaged in Article 32. The Supreme
Court under Article 32(2) is free to devise any procedure for the enforcement of Fundamental right
and it has the power to issue any process necessary in a given case. In view of the constitutional
provision, the Supreme Court may even give remedial assistance, which may include
compensation in the cases. The Apex Court has taken the view that there is no reason for the court
to provide monetary compensation in as remedy in disposal of writs upholding the fundamental
right of the citizens.
Moreover, the Court came up with such remedy in this case as the State in the present case acted
way out of its jurisdiction, as pointed out by the Court that the police in a free society cannot act
as self-appointed guardians of public morality, the force is subject to the rule of law and it must
follow it, it’s duty is to ensure the citizens are able to exercise their rights peacefully and here the
contrary was happening, they were themselves suppressing the right of speech and expression of
the producers.
Moreover, this was an attempt by the State to suppress dissent, and such practices need to be
discouraged to prevent the essence of democracy, as such attempts pose grave threat to free speech
and expression.