Delhi HC put a query to centre about what order can be passed under Cinematography Act

New Delhi [India], July 30 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard the submissions on behalf of the petitioner Mohd Javed and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) in the Udaipur Files movie matter. The division bench will continue to hear further arguments by the ASG on Friday.
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner, Mohd Javed's right to a fair trial would be prejudiced if this movie is allowed to be released.
A division bench of justices Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Tushar Rao Gedela listed the matter for further hearing on August 1.
The petition filed by Maulana Arshad Madani is also to be heard on August 1, as the senior counsel was not available today.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, alongwith advocate Pyoli, appeared for Mohd Javed.
At the outset, it was argued that the right to a fair trial is an essential right in this country. The right of the accused will be prejudiced if this movie is released, which is solely based on the charge sheet.
It was argued that Mohd Javed is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. He is on bail granted by the High Court.
It is also submitted that the makers of the film are guilty of contempt of court. A film cannot be made based on a matter that is subjudice before a court.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also submitted that in the course of the administration of justice, the rights of either party ought not to be prejudiced.
The chief justice said that a fair trial is an intrinsic right. It is not denied. "You explain what contempt of court means in this case."
Senior advocate referred to Article 19, freedom of speech, and Article 21, right to life. She submitted that the life of the petitioner would be in danger if who is living with his family.
She also referred to a judgment of the Kerala High Court on the right to speech and fair trial in a case related to a crime-specific TV serial. "No one can publish or telecast until the person is found guilty by the court."
It was further submitted that this movie is based on the charge sheet, in which the dialogues are lifted from the charge sheet.
The petitioner is an accused in the case of murder, and he is on bail. Magnitude is not an offence of murder, but how this offence has engulfed this country, she said.
The Kerala High Court said even if the fiction is based on a true crime story, it should be withheld, a senior advocate submitted.
It was also submitted that under section 6 of the Cinematography Act, the central government may take three actions. First, change the category of the CBFC certificate, repeal the certificate, or suspend it, subject to review at a specified interval.
"In this case, the Central government exceeded its jurisdiction in revisional matters by proposing changes or cuts to the Money," the senior advocate submitted.
The bench put the queries to ASG Chetan Sharma, who was appearing on behalf of the Central government and CBFC.
Chetan Sharma submitted that the government was within its powers while suggesting the cuts.
It was also submitted that when a certificate is granted, it is as per the power enshrined in the Act.
He also submitted that both sides were called upon to see the film. "Their every anxiety, issue was addressed."
The fresh Certificate has not been issued as the matter is before the High Court, as submitted by ASG.
The court asked the ASG, "Is there any power to ask to make cuts or changes given to the Central government?"
The court stated that the Central government is limited to issuing three orders when exercising its revisional jurisdiction under the Act.
"Tell us the order you passed that falls under which of the clauses of section 6 (2) of the Cinematography Act," the court asked the ASG.
The court said that the order was to approach the Central government and to avail the remedy under section 6. "The government could pass three orders only. What order can be passed is mentioned in section 6."
The court said that it is a case where the Central Government has acted as an appellate body over the CBFC.
The ASG submitted that he would try to satisfy the query put by the court.
After hearing submissions, the bench listed the matter for hearing further arguements by the ASG. (ANI)