Citations: Raj Kapoor Vs Laxman Singh, AIR 1980 SC 605
Date of Judgment: 14/12/1979
Equivalent citations: 1980 CriLJ 436; 1980 2 SCC 175; 1980 2 SCR 512 SC
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 1979
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner/Appellant: Raj Kapoor
Defendant/Respondent: Laxman Singh
Bench: Hon’ble Justice R Pathak, Hon’ble Justice V K Iyer
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Cinematograph Act, 1952; Sections-5A & 5B
- Constitution of India; Article- 19(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections- 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections- 79, 292
Cases Referred:
- K.A. Abbas Vs the Union of India and Anr. (1971) 2 SCR 446
Facts:
- The Petitioner, in this case, is Raj Kapoor, and the matter is related to the controversy of the movie Satyam Shivam Sundaram released in the year 1978. Laxman, a viewer and the Respondent herein, filed a suit against the producer, actor, director, exhibitor, and photographer involved in the film.
- The Respondent alleged that the contents were obscene, indecent, and against public morals, and the title was misleading the common public. He filed a complaint under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and after due cognizance of the evidence, the Trial Court issued a notice to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the court notice, the Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming that the film was considered for the exhibition and had been duly approved ‘A’ certification by the Central Board of Film Censors.
- However, the High Court dismissed the case contending that the proceedings in the court continue. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the case, the Petitioner under Section 79 Indian Penal Code, 1860 approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Censors under Section 5(A) of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 was justified?
- Whether the Petitioner was protected under the defence provided in Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code 1860?
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
The counsel for Petitioner contented that:
- The Central Board of Film Censors authorized under Section 5(A) of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 has granted ‘A’ certificate to the film “Satyam Shivam Sundaram” produced by the Petitioner.
- The Act of the Petitioner is justified as it comes under the purview of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was no ulterior motive on the part of the Petitioner to hurt the sentiments of the public.
- The acts are reasonably justified as provided under Section 79 of the Indian Penal code that neutralizes Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the instant matter.
Contention of Defendant/Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent to counter the Petitioner’s arguments gave the following contentions:
- The film exhibits obscene and indecent content in the guise of a good title, “Satyam Shivam Sundaram.”
- The Respondent further asserted that the producer, actor, director, exhibitor, and photographer involved with this film should be held guilty under Section 292 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for misleading the public and exhibiting obscene contents.
Judgement:
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal as the case falls within the ambit of general exceptions under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The Act of the Petitioner was justified, and the charges being groundless, the Court dismissed the prosecution.
The Appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Hon’ble Court observed that Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 works as a weapon to immunize the doer when an act done is justified under the governing law or when the doer under a mistake of faith or good faith believes that he was justified by law to do some act.
- It is also vital to note that Indian Penal Code is a general law while Cinematograph Act is a special law. In case of conflict special law prevails over the general law. Likewise in the instant case, the latter legislation lays down a body of expertise and calibre that is empowered by law to grant certificates to any film and it cannot be suppressed unreasonably by a prosecution.
- Furthermore, the Central Board of Film Censors, after considering all conditions relating to Section 292 of Indian Penal Code 1860, has granted ‘A’ Certificate to the film under Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The members of the board have the expertise and relevant skills.
- The Court also observed that the freedom of free speech and expression is fundamental and is envisaged under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950. These rights cannot be curbed under the garb of reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2) of the Constitution 1950 on the pretext of grounds of obscenity, indecency, and public order. These concepts are dynamic in themselves and cannot be used as a means to silence artistic expression nor to promote a riot of sensual display. Thus, based on the above-stated reasons the court allowed the appeal, discharging the accused persons from the charges levied.
Obiter Dicta:
- “Sublime titles of cinematograph films may enchant or entice and only after entry into the theatre the intrinsic worth of the picture dawns on the viewer. The experience may transform because the picture is great or the audience may lose lucre and culture in the bargain. Mere titles may not, therefore, attest the noxious or noble content of the film. Sometimes the same film may produce contrary impacts and what one regards as lecherous, another may consider elevating.”
- “The censor is not the moral tailor setting his own fashions but a statutory gendarme policing films under Article 19(2) from the angle of public order, decency or morality. These concepts are themselves dynamic and cannot be whittled down to stifle expression nor licentiously enlarged to promote a riot of sensual display.”
Conclusion:
The government has on many occasions banned movies under the garb of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution branding the publications as obscene, indecent, or against public order. Controversies relating to the content of movies such as Vishwaroopam, Parzania, Bajirao Mastani, Padmavat are equally evident in society. The ban imposes an unreasonable and arbitrary restriction on the artistic freedom of an individual.
Likewise, in the movie “Satyam Shivam Sundaram” the respondent claimed that the film was against public order and was obscene. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Petitioner and dismissed the proceedings subsequently.
When an act is justified by the governing law or if the doer under a mistake of fact and good faith believed that he was justified by law to do that act, the act may be an offence under any other general law, Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code gives immunity to the act of the doer. Thus, in the instant case, Petitioner has committed no offence as Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code neutralizes the Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 1, 2021 at 19:19 IST