New Delhi: “You cannot make fundamental rights dependent on public display of emotions. Public display of emotions has to be controlled. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday while staying West Bengal’s ban on controversial film “The Kerala Story”.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud also directed Tamil Nadu to make adequate security arrangements in cinema halls where the film is being screened.
Tamil Nadu has claimed that there was no direct or indirect ban on the film in the state and cinema halls themselves stopped screening it.
The court also questioned the filmmakers over their claim of “fraudulent conversion” of 32,000 women from Kerala and their recruitment into ISIS. When the court objected to this unverified data, the filmmaker agreed to add a disclaimer that the film “represents a fictionalized version of the subject matter” by 5 pm on 20 May.
The above three directions were issued on a set of petitions raising myriad issues around the film. While the filmmaker challenged the ban on the film’s exhibition in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, a set of petitions wanted a complete ban on its viewing.
While the court granted interim relief to the filmmaker, it said it would consider other petitions only after watching the film. His plea will be heard in July as the court is closing for summer vacation.
Regarding the ban of the West Bengal government, the court found it strange that it took such a step on the opinion of 13 people. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the filmmaker, told the bench how West Bengal has ordered the ban.
He said the state’s decision was based on some reports from intelligence officers who had seen the film. The senior advocate submitted, “They picked up 12 to 13 people, who said the film was terrible and would lead to riots.”
Referring to West Bengal’s response to the petition, Salve said the state had cited an incident of violence in Maharashtra which was allegedly instigated by an Instagram post on the film. “However, the film is not banned in Maharashtra,” Salve said.
When the state’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, submitted that the film has been banned to maintain public peace, the bench remarked: “You are saying that the film has been banned on the basis of 13 people. You get some 13 people and they will say ban any film unless you are showing them cartoons.
The CJI faulted the state for invoking a provision of the West Bengal Cinema Regulation Act. It said: “Section 6 (of the law) cannot be used to impose a premium on public intolerance.”
“Therefore, the order dated May 8, 2023, of the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Department of Information and Cultural Affairs shall be stayed,” the court ordered.
The court disagreed with Singhvi’s contention that the demographic profile of the state was different from that of others who were showing the film. It said the power should be used in a proportionate manner, barring screening in places where problems are likely to arise. The authorities should not impose a blanket ban across the state, as has been done in this case.
“Who has thought of banning it everywhere,” wondered the bench, which told Singhvi that it would be wrong to assume that the same demographic profile exists across the state and therefore the district magistrates have the power to use it. Was given the whole or part of a state.
Also, the court did not appreciate the projection made in the film of the number of women who allegedly converted, saying the figure of 32,000 was “distorted”. It asked Salve to address it, to which the senior counsel agreed.
Salve assured the bench that a clarification would be added in the film that there is no authentic data available on conversions.