Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    Mohd Aqib

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    Mohd Aqib
    15 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    Summary

    Uploaded by

    Mohd Aqib

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Issue1

    It is humbly submitted that the order of CBFC, denying certification to the film 'Being Gay’,
    is neither arbitrary and nor it violates of fundamental rights of the Appellants. CBFC has
    followed the due procedure and guidelines of the Cinematograph act, 1952 and denied the
    certificate as the concerned film violates the clause1(i) and the clause2(viii), caluse2(xii),
    clause2(xiii), caluse2(xviii) of the guidelines mentioned under the section 5B of the
    Cinematograph Act, 1952. Also, the decision of the CBFC was affirmed by the FCAT which
    is the statutory body for hearing the appeals against the orders of CBFC. .

    Further the fundamental rights guaranteed by the part III of the Indian Constitution are not
    absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned under the Article 19(2). Section
    5B of the Cinematograph act echoes article 19(2) and therefore film certification if done as
    per the cinematgraph act and its guidelines is very well justified and does not curtail or
    violate the fundamental rights of the film makers. In the present case, the CBFC has aptly
    followed the cinematograph act, 1952 and the guidelines mentioned in it. Therefore, it is
    humbly submitted that in the present case the CBFC has rightly denied the certification to the
    film “Bieng Gay” and in doing so it has not violated the fundamental rights of the appellants.

    Issue3

    It is humbly submitted that the online release of the trailer of the film ‘Being Gay” by the
    Appellants is illegal.

    The word “Illegal” has been defined in the section 43 of the IPC which states that the word
    “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or
    which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be “legally bound to do”
    whatever it is illegal in him to omit. In the present case, since the content of the film was
    alleged to be obscenec and vulgar, the appellants by uploading the trailer online have
    committed a offence ounishable unfder the section 67 of the IT Act and therefore the act of
    appellants is illegal.

    You might also like