Cinematograph Act, 1952: Section 5-B.

Film Certification of Held: Test is Film scenes should advance the message which the film intends to convey-A film that depicts consequences of social evil can show the social evil itself which must be sufficient for the purpose of the film Guidelines issued by Central Government under S. 5-B(2) are broad standards and should not be read as a statute Guidelines require that human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity, degrading or denigrating women-Where the theme of the film is to condemn rape and degradation of and violence upon women, scenes of nudity and rape and use of expletives in aid of the theme to arouse revulsion against the perpetrators and pity for the victim, permissible Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, R. 24 Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 19(2).

Section 5-C-Film certification Grant of Appeal against-Interference by High Court Held: Appellate Tribunal had viewed film in true perspective and, in compliance with requirements of guidelines, granted 'A' certificate High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction ought not to have interfered with view of Tribunal Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 226.

"Bandit Queen" is the story of a village child exposed from an early age to the brutality and lust of man. Married off to a man old enough to be her father she was beaten and raped. The village boys made advances, which she repulsed but the village panchayat found her guilty of enticement of a village boy because he was of high caste and she had to leave the village. She was arrested and, in the police station, filthily abused. Those G who stood bail for her did so to satisfy their lust. She was kidnapped and raped. During an act of brutality the rapist was shot dead and she found an ally in her rescuer. With his assistance she beat up her husband, violently. Her rescuer was shot dead by one whose advances she had spurned. She was gang-raped by the rescuer's assailant and his accomplices and they humiliated her in the sight of the village, a hundred

men standing in a circle around the village well and watching her being stripped naked and made to walk around the circle and then made to draw water. And not one of the villagers helped her. To avenge herself upon her persecutors, she joined a dacoits' gang and killed twenty Thakurs of the village. Ultimately, she surrendered and was in jail for a number of year.

The film was presented for certification to the Censor Board under the Cinematograph Act 1952. The Examining Committee of the Censor Board referred it to the Revising Committee under Rule 24(1) of the Cinematographic (Certification) Rules, 1983. The Revising Committee recommended that the film be granted an 'A' certificate, subject to certain excisions and modifications.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Revising Committee, an appeal was filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal comprised of a Chairman, a retired Judge of High Court, and three ladies as members. Upon the basis of a unanimous order of the Tribunal, the film was granted an 'A' certificate. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the certificate granted to the film and to restrain its exhibition in India. The respondent contended that though audiences were led to believe that the film depicted the character of "a former queen of ravines" also known as Phoolan Devi, the depiction was "abhorrent and unconscionable and a slur on the womanhood of India" and that the respondent and his community had been depicted in a most depraved way specially in the scene of rape by B, which scene was "suggestive of the moral depravity of the Gujjar community". A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the certificate granted to the film Having viewed the film, a Division Bench of the High Court examined it in regard to three aspects viz. the frontal nudity scene relating to the incident of fetching water from the well which ran for two minutes, the scene showing the naked posterior of the rapist and use of expletives. Overall, the Division Bench was of the view that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by the use of the wrong tests and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal.