Summary
A petition sought to prevent overseas exhibition of Padmavati before Indian certification and to compel criminal investigation of its makers. The Court dismissed the unsupported prayers, struck scurrilous pleadings and emphasized that public officeholders must not prejudge pending certification. It affirmed protection of artistic expression subject to lawful reasonable restrictions.
Issues
- Whether the pending certification process justified the requested exhibition restraint or direction to register an FIR.
- What restraint applied to public commentary and pleadings concerning that process.
Held
- The overseas-exhibition prayer lacked foundation given the maker’s statement that no such step was intended pending CBFC consideration. Judicial intervention would prejudge the statutory process, and the alleged offences supplied no basis for directing an FIR. (¶ 5–7)
- The dates-and-events portion formed part of the pleadings. Repeated scurrilous and unwarranted assertions were struck off, with a direction against their repetition; public-interest process must not be used for abuse or publicity. (¶¶ 2, 4, 8)
- Persons holding public responsibility should not comment so as to prejudge a certification application pending before CBFC. The statutory authority must decide objectively under the governing Act, rules and guidelines; prejudicial public pronouncements offend rule-of-law requirements. (¶ 9)
- Artistic licence and expressive freedom merit strong protection assessed objectively case by case. Restrictions must have a lawful basis and be reasonable; the judgment did not itself grant the film a certificate or decide its content merits. (¶ 10–16)
Result
Writ petition dismissed without costs; specified pleadings struck off and petitioner cautioned to exercise care in future. No exhibition restraint, FIR direction or certification decision granted.