Top News Headlines 11th Feb 2022: Filmmakers Cannot Be Dictated To Use Only Decent Language In Films

Filmmakers Cannot Be Dictated To Use Only Decent Language In Films, The Artistic Discretion Is Only Limited By Article 19(2): Kerala HC

• The Hon’ble Kerala HC has, in Peggy Fen vs. Central Board Of Film Certification and ors. has held that filmmakers have a certain artistic discretion which can only be limited by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Thus, they cannot be barred from using foul language in a movie unless it stands in violation of the reasonable restrictions enshrined in the aforementioned Article.
• The instant plea was filed to remove the Malayalam movie Churuli from the OTT platform SonyLiv for the alleged excessive use of obscene language. To analyse why such foul language was used, the court dived into the plot of the movie and observed that the movie was about a group of fugitives, residing in deep forests and cut off from the outside world. The inmates of the village are rough and tough and are under a constant threat of the law.
• In an earlier hearing in the same case,the Court had observed that artistic freedom means the freedom to imagine, create and distribute culture. The same has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
• The Court had previously impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement reporting whether there had been any statutory violations in the movie. The team reported that the characters in the movie struggled for survival daily. Due to their living conditions, the characters are forced to speak in a coarse language with cuss words in their daily interactions. Thus, the Court observed that the filmmaker had used such language to make the set-up of the movie believable.
• The Court also observed that criticising a movie without even watching it would hurt the filmmaker’s interests.
• The Court also observed that the plea appeared to be a mere publicity stunt, as there are no proper pleadings in the petition and seemed to be filed just to gain publicity. A movie cannot be ordered to be removed from an OTT platform just because of an allegation that it contains foul language.
• Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Court.

Appellate Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Reversing Acquittal Orders Passed By The Trial Courts: Bombay HC

• The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State Of Maharashtra v Gulab Dattu Patil & Ors, held that an appellate court’s inclination to re-evaluate and re-appreciate evidence on record for the purpose of taking an alternate view is not justified when the Trial Court’s view is also possible and not unreasonable. It observed that a caution must be exercised before making changes to the factual findings recorded by the Lower Courts.
• Brief facts are that a GITR was registered with the Mumbai Police by one Sri Krishna Mane who found a dead body in a bad shape in his field. The daughter of the deceased was married to one of the Respondents and had initiated litigation against the respondent and his family for ill-treating her. She was also attending gearings in this regard along with her father. The Respondents connived to murder the deceased.
• The Prosecution submitted that the present case was that of a criminal conspiracy wherein one of the Respondents, on the pretext of locating an underground water source, took the deceased to a secluded area and smashed his head. Thereafter, he took off the clothes and left the body naked to evade evidence.
• No defence witness was produced and after hearing arguments from both sides, the Trial Court acquitted all Respondents.
• The question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether an appellate court could interfere with the order of the High Court especially in cases of order of acquittal.
• The Court held that in cases of Trial Court’s acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused becomes stronger and the accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. It also remarked that despite the appellate court’s extensive powers in appeals against conviction, the same cannot be exercised in appeals against acquittal because the trial court sees the demeanor of witnesses and if it takes a reasonable view, interference by an appellate court is unjustified.
• The Court placed reliance on earlier Supreme Court judgments in the case of in Murlidhar @Gidda v State of Karnataka, Surajpal Singh v State, Tulsiram Kanu v State, Madan Mohan Singh v State of UP, Atley v State of UP, Aher Raja Khima v State of Saurashtra, Balbir Singh v State of Punjab, Khedu Mohton v State of Bihar and Chandrappa v State of Karnataka, among others.
• Given the above, the Court, dismissing the appeal, held that it would not interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.

Casting Doubt On Every Visitor And Subjecting Them To A CCTV Surveillance Is Irrational And Infringes The Right To Privacy Of People: Madras HC

• Rejecting a request by the police to install CCTV cameras inside two clubs and recreation centres to check gambling and other illegal activities, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of MM Nagar Sports & Recreation Centre and Anr v The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, observed that such installation would be in violation of right to privacy of the visitors and members of the club.
• The Court observed that casting doubt on every visitor and subjecting them to CCTV surveillance is irrational and branding every visitor as capable of committing an offence in the nature of betting/ wagering is an indication of a narrow and archaic mindset.
• The Court however directed the club owners to install CCTV cameras at the entrance and exit of the club and also in areas where games are played by the members.
• The Petitioner is a club registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1978 and conducts permitted gaming and recreational activities in the club. The Petitioner, along with another, approached the Court with a grievance that Police Officials interfered with the peaceful functioning of the club causing embarrassment to the members to the club, some of whom were prominent personalities.
• It was also argued that the members of the Police force below the rank of a sub-inspector entered the club premises causing inconvenience to the club members, which was a clear violation of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Gambling Act, 1930.
• It was also stated that the Police’s stand of installing CCTV cameras at all places within the club, including corridors and play areas was unacceptable since it would directly lead to infringement of members’ privacy. To support their argument, the Petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy and Anr v UOI & Ors.
• Agreeing with the Petitioner’s claim the Court observed that suspicions, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. It also remarked that when a statute makes it clear for a certain procedure to be followed, insistence on installation of the CCTV cameras doesn’t bode well with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court.
• The Court examined the relevant paras of the Puttuswamy ruling on constant surveillance and remarked that constant gaze of the Police through CCTVs would make a person right to privacy redundant and will offend and deprive his cherished right for the sake of the alleged offender.
• The Police cannot traverse beyond the legal framework and assume that every person visiting the club may commit an offence. The legal maxim "necessitas publica est major quam privata '' meaning 'public necessity is greater than private necessity' can be looked into only when an overwhelming public interest overrides private interest of a few individuals. However, where there is suspicion on only a few members, scrutinising everyone doesn’t have a rational nexus.
• In light of the above, it was held that the Petitioner need not install CCTV cameras inside the premises. However, they must be placed at the entrance and no police officer shall attend the premises unnecessarily and no attempt shall be made to access CCTV footage that infringed the right to privacy of other members.