If a film-maker says his work, which could be defamatory, is correct and truthful, how can the censor board bar it from being screened, the Delhi High Court today asked the CBFC.
Will you curtail a media organisation from covering a protest, the court asked CBFC.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru's queries to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) came during the hearing of a woman's plea that her documentary on two units of soft drink giant Coca Cola was denied clearance for screening by the censor board which claimed it was allegedly "misleading and politically motivated".
When the producer, Jharana Jhaveri, went in appeal to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), it upheld the CBFC's August 31, 2016 decision denying clearance to the documentary and saying it was "replete with per se defamatory imputations".
The petitioner has challenged the CBFC's decision as well as the May 8, 2017 order of the FCAT denying clearance to the film which is focused on two plants at Mehdiganj in north-eastern Uttar Pradesh, where villagers were shown making negative statements about the soft drink giant's units.
After viewing the film, the high court today said the film -- Charlie and the Coca Cola Company -- does defame the soft drink giant, but questioned how the CBFC could censor the film or deny it certification if the film-maker was saying that the statements in the production were correct and truthful.
"If the film-maker is attesting to the truth of the statements made, which are defamatory, then how can you censor it? Will you curtail a media organisation from covering a protest? Should the producers only show good things and nothing bad? That is a bad philosophy to follow," the court said.
It also said if the documentary defames Coca Cola, it will sue them for damages or for stopping them from showing the film.
The court asked the petitioner to make the company also a party to the proceedings so that its side can also be heard. It listed the matter for hearing on April 18.
The court did not accept the contention saying then it "would mean that people of this country cannot say anything. It would mean no one can say anything about the 1962 Sino-India war as it could affect friendly relations with China," it added.
The court also said that there was nothing in the film which would put at risk the sovereignty, integrity and the national security of the country.
It also observed that there was nothing obscene about the film, nor did it have any content which went against public order.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)