WWW.LIVELAW.IN

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-2777-2018 (VICOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE RELEVANT LAWS OF INDIAN COMPANIES AC Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

1 Jabalpur, Dated : 01-02-2018 Mr. Kishor Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Shashank

sh

Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Pr ad e

Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned Advocate General with Mr. Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 /State on advance copy.

hy a

Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Parashar, Mr. Himanshu Mishra and Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava, learned

ad

counsel for the respondent No.3.

of M

Heard on the question of admission as well as grant of interim relief. No notice is required to be issued as represented through their

rt

respective counsel.

ou

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the inaction of the

C

respondents in not providing adequate security measures for exhibition

H ig

h

of the 'Padmaavat' inspite of repeated request and reminders by the cinema owners and distributors. The petitioner is a producer of the film 'Padmaavat' and the film despite having being granted requisite certification under the Cinematograph Act was banned by various States including the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the various States of Gujarat and Rajasthan under the respective State Acts and press release and public statements made by Chief Ministers and other Senior Functionaries of the other States including respondents No.1 and 2 stating that the film will not be

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

released in their respective States and inaction and failure on part of State authorities including the State of Madhya Pradesh to implement the security measures to ensure peaceful release of the film 'Padmaavat' across the State had challenged such bans imposed by the States as aforesaid before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Writ Petition No.36/2018. In the said writ petition, the Supreme Court

sh

has passed an order staying restrain order passed by the States from

Pr ad e

distribution and exhibition of the film and also directed the States to sustain law and order situation and to provide police protection for

hy a

peaceful exhibition of the film.

The State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Rajasthan have filed

ad

applications for modification of the order dated 18.01.2018. The said

of M

applications were rejected by the Apex Court on 23.01.2018. After orders of the Supreme Court, the film was released all over the world

rt

on 25.01.2018.

ou

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that inspite of the

C

directions issued by the Supreme Court, the respondent No.1 has not

h

taken adequate measures to sustain law and order situation in the

H ig

State and to provide adequate security to cinema owners and distributor, who wish to exhibit the film. The said fact is clear from the news items published in news paper as some of the unlawful and illegal events have taken place across the country. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already approached to the respondent No.1 for providing adequate security so that they can exhibit the film, however, no action has been taken by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed against the inaction of the respondents in not providing adequate security to them.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

On the other hand, learned Advocate General, who appears on advance copy submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the relief, which is claimed by the petitioner in the said petition has already been granted by the Apex Court and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that

the security to the exhibitors of the film.

sh

the respondents have already taken adequate measures for providing

Pr ad e

Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.3 submits that the respondent No.3 is a Central Circuit Cine Association and they are

hy a

suffering financial loss due to non exhibition of the film. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 is bound to follow the directions issued by

ad

the Apex Court and it is the duty of the State to maintain law and order

of M

situation in the State and to provide adequate security to the cinema owners and exhibitors, who wish to exhibit the film.

rt

In the light of aforesaid, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and

ou

respondent No.3 submits that the interim relief may be granted in

C

favour of the petitioner so that petitioner can peacefully release the

h

film in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

H ig

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of grant of interim relief. The petitioner is a producer of the film 'Padmaavat' has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court bearing No.36/2018 against the ban imposed by the State of Gujarat and Rajasthan for exhibiting the film 'Padmaavat'. In the said writ petition, the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 has issued following directions. “In view of the aforesaid, we direct there shall be stay of operation of the modifications and orders issued by the respondent-States and we also restrain

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the other States to issue notifications/orders in any manner prohibiting the exhibition and we are sure, the concerned State authorities shall keep paragraph 27 of the judgment in the case of Prakash Jha in mind which clearly lays down that it is the paramount obligation of the State to maintain law and order. It

sh

should always be remembered that if intellectual

Pr ad e

prowess and natural or cultivated power of creation is interfered without the permissible facet of law, the

hy a

concept of creativity paves the path of extinction ; and when creativity dies, values of civilization

ad

corrode. Keeping in view the fact situation, we have

of M

no hesitation in stating by way of repetition and without any fear of contradiction that it is the duty of

rt

the State to sustain the law and order situation

ou

whenever the film is exhibited, which would also

H ig

h

C

include providing police protection to the persons who are involved in the film / in the exhibition of the film and the audience watching the film, whenever sought for or necessary.”

Thereafter, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Rajasthan has filed applications I.A. No.10950/2018 and I.A. No.10975/2018 on 22.01.2018 for modification of the order passed by the Apex Court. The said applications were dismissed by the Apex Court on 23.01.2018. After dismissal of the applications for modification, the film was released all over the world on 25.01.2018, but the same could not be released in the State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. respondent No.1. As the

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

respondent No.1 has failed to provide adequate security to the cinema owners and exhibitors, who wish to exhibit the film, therefore, they have submitted a representation to respondent No.1. However, no action has been taken by the respondent No.1 therefore, the present petition has been filed. Thus, in the light of aforesaid, as the respondent has failed to take adequate measures inspite of directions

sh

issued by the Supreme Court, therefore, in my view, the present writ

Pr ad e

petition is maintainable. Being a welfare state it is the duty of the State and its authority to provide the adequate security to the cinema

hy a

owners, exhibitors as well as audience, who wish to see the film. As per the Police Regulations No.32, it is the duty of the Superintendent of

ad

Police that all orders issued by the Courts or other competent authority

of M

are promptly carried out. Regulation No.321 of the Police Regulations provides for prevention and detection of offence are chief duties, which

rt

is required to be performed by the police men. Thus, as per this

ou

regulation, it is the statutory duty of the police to provide adequate

C

security to the citizens as well as to take measures for prevention and

h

detection of the offences. So far as grant of interim relief at this stage

H ig

is concerned, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 697 in paragraph No.12 has held as under :-

“12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the main petition itself ; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case – of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting

sh

the balance of the case totally in favour of the

Pr ad e

applicant may persuade the court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief

hy a

itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The court would grant such an interim relief

ad

only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the

of M

conscience of the court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated

rt

throughout the hearing, an at the end the court would

ou

not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously

C

such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling

H ig

h

circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.”

In the present case also there is a prima-facie strong case in favour of the petitioner and in case, the interim relief is not granted in favour of the petitioner, then the petition filed by the petitioner would tantamount to dismissal of the main writ petition itself. For, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. Thus in the light of aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court and directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of writ petition No.36/2018, the respondents are bound to follow the directions issued by the Apex Court. Accordingly, by way of interim measure, the respondents are directed to provide the adequate police

sh

protection and support to the persons, who are involved in the

Pr ad e

exhibition and distribution of the film and to the viewers of the film and also to ensure that no persons, groups or protestors will carry firearms

hy a

or other articles capable of causing injury or damage or destruction of property, which is situated within 200 meters radius of cinema halls

ad

and multiplexes in the State.

of M

List this petition in the week commencing 26.02.2018. In the meanwhile, the State may file their reply.

H ig

h

C

ou

rt

Certified copy as per rules

RC

Digitally signed by RASHMI CHIKANE Date: 2018.02.03 13:09:35 +05'30'

(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE