Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of film certification for the Hindi feature Masoom Kaatil under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Court upheld the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification’s Examining and Revising Committees, which found the film unfit for public exhibition on grounds of excessive gore, human cannibalism, extreme violence against humans and animals, communal and caste-based remarks, and denigration of religion. Referring to the 1991 Guidelines framed under Section 5B of the Act, the Bench held that the refusal of certification was consistent with the statutory objectives of preventing glorification of violence, preserving social harmony, and ensuring films remain sensitive to societal values. The appeal was accordingly dismissed

The matter concerned an appeal filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, against the order of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) refusing certification to the Hindi film Masoom Kaatil. The appellant, director and producer of the film, challenged the refusal issued by the CBFC’s Examining and Revising Committees. The Examining Committee, after viewing the film, recommended rejection citing extensive gore, extreme violence, portrayal of human cannibalism, and content that could disturb social harmony. The Revising Committee affirmed this decision, noting additional elements such as communal and caste-related references, derogatory remarks about religion, and scenes of animal cruelty.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies Migration to Unreserved Posts | Relaxations in Age Barred Under RPF Standing Orders, Physical Standards Not a Disqualification in CISF Recruitment

The appellant contended that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was argued that the film’s theme, though disturbing, was within the realm of artistic freedom and that the Guidelines under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act should be applied liberally in favour of creative expression. The appellant requested that cuts or modifications be permitted instead of outright denial of certification.

The CBFC defended its decision by referring to the 1991 Guidelines framed under Section 5B of the Act. It submitted that the film violated clauses prohibiting glorification of violence, depiction of human cannibalism, and derogatory treatment of religion or caste. It further stated that the extent of gore and violence in the film made it unfit for public exhibition, even with cuts, as the overall theme and treatment crossed permissible limits. The dispute before the Court was therefore whether the CBFC’s refusal of certification was consistent with statutory provisions and guidelines, or whether it unreasonably curtailed the filmmaker’s constitutional right to free expression.

The Court recorded: “The material placed on record demonstrates that the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee were both of the view that the film was unfit for public exhibition owing to excessive gore, violence, depiction of human cannibalism, and derogatory remarks against caste and religion.”

It further observed: “The impugned order refers to the 1991 Guidelines issued under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which specifically proscribe content that tends to glorify violence, promote communal disharmony, or denigrate any religion or caste.”

The Court stated: “The Committees were of the opinion that the overall impact of the film could not be rectified by suggesting cuts or modifications. The pervasive presence of objectionable content rendered the film unsuitable for certification in any category.”

It noted: “The Guidelines framed under Section 5B are binding in nature and are intended to ensure that films are judged in the context of preserving public order, decency, and morality, while safeguarding the sensibilities of society.”

Addressing the appellant’s contention on freedom of expression, the Court recorded: “The right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The provisions of the Cinematograph Act and the Guidelines are a manifestation of such reasonable restrictions.”

The Bench also stated: “The argument that the refusal of certification amounts to censorship beyond the statute cannot be accepted. The Committees applied the statutory Guidelines and reached the conclusion that the film was unfit for public exhibition.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court | Magistrate Not Bound by Closure Report in Sexual Harassment Case | Departmental Exoneration No Bar to Trial Under Sections 354A, 509 IPC

The Court concluded: “Considering the facts of this case in the backdrop of afore-discussed principle of law and guidelines, this Court is of the opinion that findings rendered by the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee for non-grant of film certification to the subject matter film is sustainable in the eyes of law and does not warrant interference.”

“Reverting back to the facts of this case, the Appellant has been unable to persuade this Court that the reasons forming basis of the opinion expressed by the Examining Committee in its examination report and the reasons cited by the Revising Committee in its order dated 19.09.2022 are unreasonable or contrary to the contents of the film.”

“In the overall conspectus, this Court is of the view that order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Revising Committee suffers from no illegality.”

“The appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shyam Bharteey, Appellant in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocate

Case Title: Shyam Bharteey v. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Officer Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7975
Case Number: RFA-IPD 1/2023
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora