The Telangana High Court on Monday said that filmmakers do not possess an unrestrained right to tarnish the reputation of individuals or political parties.
This observation was made by the Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda while hearing a write petition against the censor certificate issued for the Telugu movie ‘Vyuham.’ The Telugu Desam Party (TDP) had approached the court, alleging that the film was defamatory towards the party and its leaders.
The court concurred with this claim and instructed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to review its decision. Emphasizing that filmmakers do not have the unchecked authority to tarnish the image of individuals, political parties, or institutions, the court highlighted the significance of reputation as an invaluable asset that cannot be purchased; asserting that a person stripped of their reputation is akin to a destitute individual.
The judgment stressed that reputation, inherent in the right to life, should not be sacrificed for the sake of others’ freedom of speech.
Justice Nanda further underscored that the right to preserve one’s reputation is a recognized right against the entire world. The court’s decision came in response to a petition filed by the Telugu Desam Party against the movie’s certification, accusing the filmmaker of defamation.
The court rejected the argument that a political party cannot claim defamation, asserting that political parties are recognized as distinct entities with constitutional acknowledgment. It found that the CBFC’s Revising Committee had cleared the movie without providing reasons for issuing a ‘U’ certificate, expressing shock at the regulatory body’s functioning. The court criticized the CBFC’s failure to adequately review the film, which was deemed derogatory by the Examining Committee.
The judgment emphasized that the Examining Committee’s concerns were not adequately addressed by the removal of objectionable content from the movie. Despite acknowledging the Supreme Court’s perspective that a specialized body’s review indicates compliance with the law, the court concluded that the CBFC had failed in its duty in this case.
The court also noted the violation of natural justice principles, as the Centre and CBFC had overlooked complaints from the Telugu Desam Party and failed to provide it with a hearing opportunity. Consequently, the court ordered the CBFC to reconsider its decision within three weeks, deeming the issuance of the movie’s exhibition certificate irrational. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Unnam Muralidhar Rao, while the Centre and CBFC were represented by Additional Solicitor General A Narasimha Sharma. Senior Advocate A Venkatesh and Advocate Rajagopallavan Tayi represented the film producer and director, respectively.