PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

Academic Session: 2018-2023

BASICS OF CASE LAW

TOPIC- VIACOM 18 VS UNION OF INDIA (THE PADMAVATI ROW)

Submitted to: - Submitted by:-

Dr. Mr. Abdullah Nasir Nishtha Pandey

Assistant Professor BA.LLB Hons. (1st semester)

(Law) Roll no. 180101093(Section- A)

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “ vaicom 18 vs uoi (padmavati row) submitted to the

Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Lucknow, is a record of original work done by

me, under the guidance of Dr Mr Abdul Nasir, Assissatnt Professor, Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya

National Law University Lucknow, and this project has not been performed the basis for the award

of any degree or diploma/associate/fellowship and similar project if any.

Date

Signature:

(Nishtha Pandey)

1st semester, 1st year

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a word of my gratitude to my esteemed ‘Basics

of case law’ teacher Mr. Abdullah Nasir, who has been a constant source of inspiration for me in

the pursuance of this project. Sir has been gracious enough to guide me on the right path which has

enabled me to strengthen my efforts pertaining to the comprehensive research and efforts put into the

making of this project.

I would also wish the reader of my project a knowledgeable experience. The project has been

researched meticulously and has been materialized whilst making sure that the utmost level of care

and finesse is undertaken so as to see that the information mentioned is concurrent with the highest

benchmarks of accuracy, precision and perfection.

Thanking you

Nishtha Pandey
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................5

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................6

FACTS OF THE CASE.....................................................................................................................9

LEGAL QUESTION INVOLVED.................................................................................................11

REASONING OF THE COURTS DECISION.............................................................................12

Validity Of Art 19(1)............................................................................................................12

Validity Of Cinematography Act 1952 Sec 5(B).................................................................13

DISSENTING OPINION.................................................................................................................15

CASE ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................16

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................18
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

VN Shukla, Commentary on Indian Constitution....................................................................13

STATUTES

Sec 6(B)Cinematography act 1952..........................................................................................14

CASES

Km shankarappa v uoi 1970 2 SCC 780..................................................................................16

Praksh jha v uoi (2011) 8 SCC 372..........................................................................................16
Manohar Lal Sharma v Sanjay Leela Bhansali 2017 Indlaw SC 954.....................................13
S Rangarajan and another v P Jagjivan Ram 1989 Indlaw SC 549.........................................13
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

INTRODUCTION

Cinema has always been in limelight over the subject of freedom of speech and expression.

This rights of the creators of the movie is always in tussle. One such case is Viacom 18 vs

Union of India, which has created a lot of uproar in various sections of the society due to the

huge controversy being associated with it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India once again

faced the issue regarding Article 19(1) of the Constitution and the suspension of exhibition of

a film under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

In the above case few sections of the society were upset because of the fact that the movie

”padamavati” seems to display indecent portrayal of their pious queen and also the

representation of the rajpoots in the movies was also not found good with them.

However the Sec 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 provides certain conditions under which

the film would not be granted certificate if it does not meet the following requisites.

Moreover CBFC has been accorded statutory powers to grant certificates to a movie, and it

can do so only if it does not violates any law. If a movie has been granted the certificate then

it is assumed that the movie is within the four corners of the law. Suspension of the movie

thereafter would be nothing short of the infringement of the fundmental rights of the pettioner
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

BACKGROUND
The troubles for Padmavati started during the shoot itself, with Shri Rajput Karni Sena,

an organisation of the Rajput community, damaging sets at Jaipur’s Jaigarh Fort and

assaulting Mr. Bhansali in January. Vandalism followed at the shoot in Kolhapur in

March. Other groups like Jai Rajputana Sangh joined the protests even as Information

and Broadcasting Minister Smriti Irani kept promising a safe passage for the film. In

October, a Surat artist’s rangoli, featuring the lead Deepika Padukone, was destroyed in

a matter of minutes. Protests were held earlier this month in Chittorgarh.

The Karni Sena claims the film distorts facts and hurts their pride and sentiments — the

queen shown dancing without a ghoonghat (veil), allegations of an intimate dream

scene between her and the villain of the piece, Allauddin Khilji. The filmmaker has

clarified that the two characters don’t feature together in any scene. A few weeks ago,

the Karni Sena called for a ban on the film, threatening to burn down theatres and called

a countrywide bandh on December 1, the film’s original date of release. Rajasthan,

Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab have decided to disallow the

screening of the film, even as it awaits certification from the Central Board of Film

Certification (CBFC).

A debate has been continuing on the sidelines about whether Rani Padmini was for real

or just a figure of legends and myths, a figment of the poet’s imagination, not a

historical entity. Meanwhile, the CBFC returned the supposedly incomplete application

form of the film, with its chief Prasoon Joshi also citing the 68-day rule (films should

be submitted to the CBFC at least 68 days before release).

He has also been piqued by the film being shown to, and getting endorsement from,

some mediapersons before getting certified by the CBFC.

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

VARIOUS OPINIONS

1) the fringe group Karni Sena has threatened that they will gather in lakhs and will call

for a Bharat bandh on December 1. "Our ancestors wrote history with blood we will

not let anyone blacken it," a Sena member said.

2) Objecting to the Ghoomar song picturized in the film, Heena Singh Judeo, daughter-

in-law of Dilip Singh Judeo of Chhattisgarh's former royal family, said, "History has

witnessed that none of the Rajput maharanis has ever danced in front of anyone, and

they cannot play with history."

3) Rajasthan Higher and Technical Education Minister Kiran Maheshwari joined the

chorus and said she strongly opposes the film, alleging it's been made purely for

money and entertainment. "Deceit in any case with the history of immortal valour of

such women cannot be accepted," she said.

4) A Rajput group, which has been demanding a ban on Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film

Padmavati, targeted a cinema hall in Rajasthan's Kota that was screening its trailer on

Tuesday.

5) thousands took part in the protest march in Surat to raise their demand of staying the

release of Sanjay Leela Bhansali-directed movie.    

6) Haryana minister Vipul Goel sought changes in the film and said that "glamourising

Alauddin Khilji's character was akin to praising those who carry out acid attacks on

girls".

7) Divya Kumari, whose grandfather was the last ruler of Jaipur, said "Rather than

highlighting Padmini's sacrifice, the film-maker has sought to highlight the romantic

angle in this film," she said.

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

8) Mansinh Rathod, who is leading the Gujarat chapter of Karni Sena, claimed that

Sanjay Leela Bhansali has "distorted the historical facts in the movie."

. Sanjay Leela Bhansali has repeatedly denied the allegations and even released a video

clarifying that his film does not distort history.

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

FACTS OF THE CASE

The brief facts of the case are that Viacom 18 Media Private Limited (hereinafter, the

“Petitioner 1”) filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the orders

issued by 4 states, namely, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana for imposing a

ban upon the exhibition of the cinematograph film titled as “Padmaavat” (earlier

“Padmavati”). The four states had issued the orders to ban the exhibition of the film in the

interest of the public and to maintain law and order in the state. The Petitioner 1 is the official

distributor of the film whereas, Bhansali Productions Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, the “Petitioner

2”) and Mr. (hereinafter, the “Petitioner 3”) are Producer and Director of the film,

respectively.

Shree Rajput Karni Sena say there is a need to create a 'pre-Censor Board' to monitor all

period films and prevent any misrepresentation of history.

The series of controversies started when Petitioner 3 started the shooting of the film in Jaipur

in January 2017. The sets of the film were vandalised and heavily damaged along with

Peitioner 3 and the crew being assaulted by the members of Karni Sena (A Rajput cast

group). The members of Karni Sena protested against the objectionable scenes being shown

in the film and also accused the Petitioners of distorting the history of Rani Padmini. Where

several protests came majorily from the politicians and other eminent people. Lot of furore

was also raised on the ghoomar song in which the queen is shown to be dancing; which

according some people was not held in good humour because the queen who is regarded as

pious cannot be shown dancing in front of king and his fellow courtiers. Moreover Queen

padmavati is actually known for her sacrifice towards the kingdom, and the dignity of

womanhood, and this pure emotion is manhandled by the director of the movie, which

basically focuses on the love story of Alauddin Khaliji. Moreover some of the protestors also
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

raise voice against the fact that Alauddin Khalji is represented to be in love with Queen

Padmavati, whereas nowhere in history it is written so.

The crew members of the film were assaulted at several other occasions and also received

threats from the members of KarniSena. Lot of pandemonium was created and even the threat

to chop off the nose of the protagonists were given by the karni sena In December 2017, the

Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter, the “CBFC”) reviewed the film with the help

of examining committee and suggested five modifications to the film. Like the title of the

movie from “Padmavati” to “Padmavat to attribute that the movie is the adaptation of the

fictional work “padamawat” of Malik Mohammad Jayasi and not history, some change in the

songs ghoomar to suit the character, important addition to disclaimer, about not glorifying

sati and that the film does not demand historical authenticity, and modifications and

correction to the misleading reference to the historical places. Subsequently, the changes

were made and CBFC granted a U/A certificate to the film and declared that the film is fit for

public exhibition.

However, in January 2018, the protest by Karni Sena escalated and several states witnessed

various incidents of vandalism and heavy damage to the public property by the members of

Karni Sena. As a result, the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh issued

orders to ban the exhibition of the film in theatres, public etc. to maintain law and order. A

PIL was also filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to quash the certificate granted by the

CBFC to Padmavat.
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

LEGAL QUESTION INVOLVED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ORDER BY THE STATES TO NOT RELEASE THE MOVIE IS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW

ISSUE II

WHETHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO MAINTAIN LAW AND ORDER IN

THIS SITUATION
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

REASONING OF THE COURTS DECISION

THE FOLLOWING LEGAL ASPECTS WERE PROBED TO ARRIVE AT THE

DECISION

(i) Art 19(1)

(ii) Cinematography act 1952 sec 5(B)

VALIDITY OF ART 19(1)

Freedoms enshrined under this article, are used for the facilitate the development of an

individual without any fear, one can express his ideas, settle to any new place, undertake

profession of one’s choice etc. however these freedoms are not unrestricted and come with

their own set of limitations, so that the freedoms are used for self enhancement and not for

degrading others. In this case of Viacom 18 vs UOI validity of art 19(1) was called into

question. But it was clarified that the producer of any creative work is protected under the

artistic license1 which could be understood as a creative instinct which is respected and has

protective rights within itself. In the facts we could see that the movie got approval from the

CBFC and was considered as work of fiction hence protected under 19(1). Moreover a

producer has every right to form ideas and conception about a particular notion and can also

express it freely. Any piece of work is a creative expression and should be respected. The

mere threat of demonstration cannot be fertile ground to suppress the idea of a producer or

creator of a work2. Also Art 19(1)(g) provide freedom of trade, profession, business or

occupation. Any occupation or business is undertaken for the subsistence of profit3 , regular

returns will keep the person motivated however lesser or no returns will be a deterrent.

1
Manohar Lal Sharma v Sanjay Leela Bhansali 2017 Indlaw SC 954.
2
S Rangarajan and another v P Jagjivan Ram 1989 Indlaw SC 549.
3
VN Shukla, Commentary on Indian Constitution.
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

According to the prakash jha vs uoi judgement "Be it noted, a film or a drama or a novel

or a book is a creation of art. An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a

manner which is not prohibited in The human history records that there are many

authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases,

expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an

ordinary man would conceive of. A thought provoking film should never mean that it has

to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious

or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, that has to

be as per the prescription in law."

VALIDITY OF CINEMATOGRAPHY ACT 1952 SEC 5(B)

The film is sanctioned by the statutory authority which is under sec 5(B) of the

Cinematography act 1952 is conferred the power to grant certificate, otherwise the film is not

permitted to be screened. 4 This right is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures. these

measures are reflectible from language employed u/s. 5B of the Act and guidelines issued by

Central Govt. Once parliamentary legislation confers responsibility and power on a statutory

Board and Board grants certification, non-exhibition of film by States would be contrary to

statutory provisions and infringe fundamental right of petitioners. There is a Censor Board

under the Act which allows grant of certificate for screening of movies. Once Certificate has

been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that concerned authority considered all

guidelines including public order. Hence, direction issued to the effect that there should be

stay of operation of notifications and orders issued by respondent-States and restrain other

States to issue notifications/orders in any manner prohibiting exhibition. Further, concerned

State authorities shall keep paragraph 27 of Prakash Jha case in mind which clearly lays

down that it is paramount obligation of State to maintain law and order. It is the duty of State

4
Sec 6(B)Cinematography act 1952.
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

to sustain law and order situation whenever film is exhibited, which would also include

providing police protection to persons who are involved in film/in exhibition of film and

audience watching film, whenever sought for or necessary5.

Moreover it has been explicitly mentioned in the declaimer that The Film 'Padmaavat' is

inspired from the epic poem Padmavat, written by Malik Muhammad Jayasi, which is

considered a work of fiction. This Film does not infer or claim historical authenticity or

accuracy in terms of the names of the places, characters, sequence of events, locations,

spoken languages, dance forms, costumes and/or such other details. We do not intend to

disrespect, impair or disparage the beliefs, feelings, sentiments of any person(s),

community(ies) and their culture(s), custom(s), practice(s) and tradition(s). therefore

uproar on the basis of distortion of historical events does not holds much of a ground.

Also one of the major contention was that the movie eulogies the practice of sati but this

too has been clarified in the disclaimer 2 that states This Film does not intend to

encourage or support 'Sati' or such other practices."

According to sec 6 of the cinematograph act 1952

the power vested therein could be exercised by the State under the said provision when a

film which is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of peace. Only in such

circumstance and event, an order could be passed suspending the exhibition of film6.

When it is said that a film is being publicly exhibited, it definitely presupposes a meaning

that the film is being exhibited for public and in doing so if it is found likely to cause

breach of peace then in that event such a power could be exercised by the State

Government. Such an extraordinary power cannot be exercised with regard to a film

which is yet to be exhibited openly and publicly in a particular State. This view that we

5
ibid.
6
Sec 6 of cinematography act.
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

have taken is also fortified from the use of the word "suspension" in the said section.

The word "suspension" envisages something functional or something which is being

shown or is running. Suspension is always a temporary phase, which gets obliterated as

and when the previous position is restored. Consequently, at this stage, when the film is

not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls publicly and for public viewing, neither an

opinion could be formed nor could any decision be taken that there is a likelihood of

breach of peace by exercising power purported to be under Section 6 of the Act

It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the State and, therefore, the State

shall maintain it effectively and potentially. Once the Board has cleared the film for

public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the manner as sought to be

done by the State in the present case7.

Moreover it is the responsibility of the State Government to maintain law and order8.

DISSENTING OPINION
There was no dissenting opinion

7
Praksh jha v uoi (2011) 8 SCC 372.
8
Km shankarappa v uoi 1970 2 SCC 780.
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

CASE ANALYSIS
The three judges bench has ordered a stay on the notification by the 4 states regarding the

ban on the exhibition of the movie ”padmavat”, and also ordered that other states do not

do the same.

The decision by the court has been heavily based on the case of prakash jha vs uoi, which

was on the similar lines that the movie Aarakshan was suspended from public exhibition.

Here it was emphasies that a thing could only be suspended if it is operational. Here in

this case the movie was not yet out for public viewing and hence it cannot be suspended.

It was also held that once the movie has been granted the certificate, then any state cannot

resist its exhibition, otherwise it will be contrary to the provisions of law and it will be

detrimental to the rights of the petitioner.

In the case it was observed that it is the duty of the state to maintain law and order and it

cannot shirk away its responsibility by taking undue defence under the ambit of art 19(2).
 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

CONCLUSION
Supreme court has once again acted as the patron of freedom of speech and expression by

staying orders and notifications by the states The interim order in the present case has set

a milestone for creativity and intellectual talent. The legal position regarding the

suspension of exhibition of a film was clear even before the present case due to the

numerous precedents upon the same issue. However, in spite of such precedents and the

legal position being clear, the film Padmaavat faced quite a lot of trouble due to the

notifications/orders issued by the States. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the

present case, has reaffirmed the legal position regarding the staying of such

notifications/orders thereby upholding the Rule of Law in such cases. The order in the

present case is thus a boon for the artists and filmmakers as it supports idea of right to

freedom of speech and expression.

 PROJECT OF BASICS OF CASE LAW

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 http://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2018/01/25/viacom-18-media-private-limited-

ors-vs-union-of-india-ors/

 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-padmavati-controversy-10-developments-

Son-sanjay-leela-bhansali-s-film-1776389

 https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/padmavati-controversy-a-timeline-of-the-

setbacks-faced-by-sanjay-leela-bhansalis-film-4216051.html

 http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/667452/broadcasting+film+television+radio/Viacom

+18+Media+Private+Limited+Ors+vs+Union+Of+India+Ors