Distribution: weekly

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court declined to permit the release of the CBFC-certified animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath on its scheduled date, directing the producer to postpone release until after the Rath Yatra in Puri concludes, following an Orissa High Court stay over the film’s depiction of Lord Jagannath. The episode brings into focus the tension between the settled judicial position that certification by an expert statutory body carries a strong presumption of validity immune from apprehensions of public disorder, and the recurring judicial practice of restraining certified films precisely on such grounds.

What triggered the dispute, and what exactly did the Supreme Court decide?

1. Origin of the restraint: The Orissa High Court, on July 15, stayed the film’s release over concerns about its depiction of Lord Jagannath and the possible impact of screening it during the Rath Yatra.
2. Nature of the Supreme Court’s order: The Court did not permit release on the original date. It also did not uphold an indefinite restraint. It directed postponement until after July 27, when the Rath Yatra concludes.
3. Scope of challenge: The producer contested the High Court’s power to restrain a certified film, and the extent to which such restraint can rest on apprehensions of public disorder rather than an actual legal violation.
4. High Court’s stated reasoning: The film’s depiction of Lord Jagannath’s childhood and adventures was held “not in tune with the religious texts,” and its release during the Rath Yatra was called “counterproductive.”
5. Certification status of the film: The film held three separate ‘U’ (universal) certificates from the CBFC for its Hindi, Telugu, and Odia versions, dated May, June, and July respectively.
6. Territorial overreach in the stay: The restraint stalled the certified Hindi and Telugu versions even in states “where no cause of action existed and no relief was ever sought.

Why does CBFC certification carry a strong presumption of validity against restraint by apprehension of disorder?

1. Petitioner’s core argument: Once an expert statutory body certifies a film for unrestricted public exhibition, there is a strong legal presumption of validity. Courts should not substitute their own view for the CBFC’s expert judgment based on unverified apprehensions.
2. Union of India v K M Shankarappa (2000): The Supreme Court struck down a provision letting the government revise a tribunal’s decision on a certified film. It held that once an expert statutory body certifies a film, that decision cannot be revisited by the executive on the grounds of objections or apprehensions about public reaction.
3. Allocation of responsibility for law and order: The Court in Shankarappa held that once an expert body clears a film, apprehension of a law-and-order situation is no excuse to restrain it. Maintaining law and order is the concerned state government’s responsibility, not a ground to withhold the certified film.
4. S Rangarajan v P Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Supreme Court held that if a film is otherwise unobjectionable under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threatened demonstrations, processions, or violence.
5. The anti-heckler’s-veto principle: Yielding to such threats amounts to a “negation of the rule of law.” The state cannot plead inability to handle a hostile audience; it has an obligatory duty to prevent disruption and protect the freedom of expression. Heckler’s veto, suppression of lawful expression to avoid a violent or disruptive reaction from its opponents, rather than because the expression itself is unlawful.

Does the outcome in this case match the doctrine it invokes, or does it concede ground to the apprehension the doctrine forbids?

1. Re-adjudication of content already cleared: The High Court’s finding that the depiction was “not in tune with the religious texts” evaluates content on the same grounds the CBFC had already cleared, which the Shankarappa doctrine holds courts should not revisit.
2. A calibrated restraint, not a vacated one: The Supreme Court did not fully restore the certified release. It replaced an indefinite block with a postponement timed to the Rath Yatra, a decision still shaped by public-sensitivity considerations rather than a finding of unlawful certification.
3. Restraint exceeding the specific dispute: The stay affected certified versions in states where no cause of action existed and no relief was sought, extending the restraint beyond what the underlying grievance covered.
4. Net effect on the doctrine: The anti-heckler’s-veto principle is reaffirmed in language but diluted in practice. This is because the timing of a certified film’s release is still being shaped by apprehension of disruption during a religious event.

Is certification actually beyond interference, or does the law retain other levers over a cleared film?

1. Certification is not immune from judicial scrutiny: Courts retain the power to examine whether certification was granted in accordance with law, including whether the CBFC relied on statutory grounds, issued reasons, or followed fair procedure.
2. Deference is conditional: Where the CBFC acts within the framework of the Cinematograph Act, courts usually defer to it. This deference is tied to lawful process, not to certification as such.
3. Executive power to suspend or revoke: Under the Cinematograph Act, the government may suspend or revoke a certification even after approval.
4. Power to restrict without prior hearing: The government may, in some cases, temporarily restrict a certified film’s screening without a prior hearing.
5. Enforcement mechanisms beyond certification: The Act allows criminal liability for violations, and authorities are empowered to enter theatres and seize materials.

Conclusion

The doctrine from Shankarappa and Rangarajan holds that CBFC certification is final, and that neither the executive nor the courts may let apprehension of public disorder override a cleared film’s freedom of expression. In practice, both the Orissa High Court’s stay and the Supreme Court’s own decision to postpone release until after the Rath Yatra show that religious and public-order sensitivities continue to shape when and how a certified film is actually screened. Certification functions as a strong but not absolute shield: courts retain review over the legality of the certification process. Also, the executive retains statutory power to suspend, revoke, or temporarily restrict a cleared film. The unresolved question is where deference to apprehension, which the doctrine forbids, ends and legitimate statutory or procedural oversight, which the doctrine permits, begins.