Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors.
Background
A practising advocate, acting as petitioner-in-person, filed a writ petition asking the Court to stop the film "Padmavati" (directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali) from being shown abroad without film-certification clearance, and to direct the CBI to register an FIR against the filmmaker and his team for various offences including those under the Cinematograph Act, the IPC, and a law on indecent representation of women. A near-identical petition by the same person concerning the same film had already been dismissed by the Court days earlier.
Decision Breakdown
The Court found the petition's pleadings scurrilous and an abuse of the PIL process, and struck off portions of it. On merits, since the film's certification was still pending before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the Court held that any comment from it on the film would improperly pre-judge a matter still before the statutory authority, so the prayer to restrain overseas screening had no foundation. It also held there was no basis to direct the CBI to register an FIR, since the conduct alleged did not disclose any offence the police could act on. The Court used the occasion to reaffirm that artistic and creative expression deserves a high degree of protection, while cautioning public officials against commenting on matters pending before statutory bodies like the CBFC. The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court refraining from imposing costs only because the petitioner was a practising advocate, while cautioning him for the future.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not pre-judge or interfere with a matter, such as film certification, while it is still pending before the statutory body legally empowered to decide it, and a PIL cannot be used as a vehicle for vague, sensational, or unsubstantiated allegations.