YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS.versusMANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

A               YUSUF KHAN @ DILIP KUMAR AND ORS.
                                          v.
                         MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

                               FEBRUARY 25, 2000

B                    [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

         Constitution of India-Article 32--State Government alleged to be
  responsible for violent protests against the screening of a controversial
  film-Writ Petition filed to ensure adequate security a"angements and for
C directions to appoint an independent agency for investigation-New Govern-
  ment f onned after fresh Assembly elections in the State-Petitioners agreed
  that some action had been taken by the new Government-Held, it is not
  necessary to continue with the petition on account of the changed political
  situation in the State and as the new Government is taking desired action
D against the alleged offenders-Cinematograph Act, 1962.
          The film "Fire" was screened in cinema houses after the Censor
    Board of India granted certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1962.
    Strong protest arose against the script and screenplay of the film. The
    cinema houses, where the film was screened, were extensively damaged due
E   to violence during these protests. The petitioners along with the producer
    of the firm filed a writ petition in this Court for directions to the State
    Government to ensure adequate security arrangements for the screening
    of the film and for appointing a suitable agency to investigate into the
    matter.

F          The petitioners contended that the first respondent, the then Chief
    Minister of the State, and his political party were responsible for the acts
    of violence. However, they agreed that after change in the political situation
    following Assembly elections in the State, some action had been taken l:.y
    the new Government.
G
          Disposing of the writ petition, this Court

           HELD : It is not necessary to continue with the writ petition and         <
    consider the allegations, mainly on account of the changed political situa-
    tion in the State. The stand adopted by the State has changed in the new
H   political situation after the last Assembly election, which has been
                                       1216
1


            YlTSUFKHAN@DILIPKUMARv. MANOHARJOSHI(THOMAS,J.]                 1217

    admitted by the petitioners. The respondents are no longer in power and A
    the Government is now run by the political alignment opposed to them. ·
    There is no allegation against the new Government that they are lethargic
    in taking action against the protestors resorting to vandalism during
    screening of the film. [1219-A·CJ

            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 673 of               B
    1998.

            (Under Article 32 of the Omstitution of India.)

          Soli J, Sorabjee, Attorney General, R.N. Trivedi, Altaf Ahmad, Ad-
    ditional Solicitor Generals, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Indira Jaising, V.A.
                                                                                    c
    Mohta, Krishan Kr. Mahajan, Ms. Musharraf Chaudhry, P.H. Parekh, Mrs.
    V.D. Khanna, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Kailash Vasdev, Ashok Bhan, Arvind
    Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, Sushma Suri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Sameer
    Parekh, Kuldip Singh, Rahul Ray, D.M. Nargolkar and Ms. Vijay Laxmi
    Menon for the appearing parties.                                         D

         . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          THOMAS, J. A film "Fire" appears to have ignited fire in and out of
    cineina houses wherein the film was screened for the viewers. The film
    produced by one Ms. Deepa Mehta was permitted to be screened in E
    cinema houses after the Censor Board of India granted certificate under
    the Cinematograph Act, 1962. Thereafter it was released for exhibition in
    theatres by the middle of November 1998. But hardly two weeks passed
    there arose protests from some quarters against the screening of the film
    as the protestors took strong exception to the script and screenplay thereof. F
    The protests suddenly swelled up and the theatres wherein the film was
    screened became the focal points of vandalism launched by the protestors.
    They caused extensive damage to such cinema houses. Most of the cinema
    houses so attacked were located in the State of Maharashtra, and more
    particularly in the city of Mumbai.
                                                                                    G
           It was in the aforesaid background that 8 persons, including the
    producer of the film, have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the
    Constitution, for appropriate and suitable directions to the authorities
    concerned for ensuring adequate security arrangements for exhibiting the
    film, and also for appointing a suitable agency to conduct investigation into   H
    1218                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2000] 1 S.C.R.

A the acts of violence which amounted to offence committed by several
    persons in the theatres of Mumbai wherein the film "Fire" was exhibited.

           Petitioners contended that first respondent (who was then the Chief
    Minister ·of Maharashtra) and his political party (Shiv Sena - 6th respon-
    dent) as well as its chief leader (4th respondent) were instrumental in
B   instigating the protests and they had also encouraged the protestors to
    resort to violence and to indulge in vandalism under the pretext of express-
    ing their opposition to the exhibition of the film. Petitioners also pointed
    out that the film "Fire" had secured many laurels from different quarters
    who are competent to adjudge the quality of the film.
c         The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra was
    sworn to by a Deputy Secretary, attached to the Home Department of the
    State Government. The allegations that the State had condoned the acts of
    violence etc. have been denied in the said counter affidavit. According to
    the deponent of the counter affidavit, the police had taken necessary steps
D   in respect of the incidents, particularly those which took place at New
    Empire Theatre. FIR had been registered under various sections of the
    Indian Penal Code as well as under the Bombay Police Act, 1951, at the
    Azad Maidan Police Station on 2.12.1998 itself, and on conclusion of the
    investigation charge-sheets have been laid against 21 persons in the court
E   of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. According to him, the said case is
    pending trial in the said court. Similarly, cases have been registered in
    respect of the incidents which happened at Cinemax theatre, Bombay. That
    also was finally charge-sheeted against 25 persons. Adequate police ban-
    dobast was ordered in front of the residence of the first petitioner Dilip
    Kumar, the cine actor, besides registering criminal case against 22 persons
F   including a member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to Shiv Sena.

          The deponent referred to the above cases as instances of the strong
    actions taken by the State machinery for dealing with the situation.

G         In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the 4th petitioner the stand taken
    by the State of Maharashtra through the affidavit sworn to by the Deputy
    Secretary, has not been seriously repudiated. In fact, it was admitted that
    some actions have been taken by the State. Therefore, petitioners put
    forward certain altered prayers through Interlocutory Application No.10 of
    1999. The main among those prayers was to hand over investigation of the
H   cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
    1


                YUSUF KHAN@ DILIP KUMAR v. MANOHAR JOSHI [THOMAS, J.]            1219

                We don't think it necessary to continue with the writ petition, mainly   A
          on account of the changed political situation in the State of Maharashtra.
        . Apart from the stand adopted by the State of Maharashtra through the
          Deputy Secretary of the Home Department in the affidavit referred to
          above, it is now admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
          the political situation changed after the last Assembly election when Shiv
          Sena failed to secure sufficient support in the Legislative Assembly. Hence,   B
          they are no longer in power and the Government of Maharashtra is now
          run by the political alignment which was opposed to Shiv Sena.

              In the changed circumstances we don't think it necessary to consider
        the allegations. That apart, since there is no allegation against the new        C

-       Government that they are lethargic in taking actions against the protestors
        resorting to vandalism during screening of the film "Fire", there is no need
        now to consider issuing any other directions.

              We therefore, close this writ petition, without prejudice to any mo-
        tion which may have to be made in future in respect of the cause of action D
        now shown.

        A.O.                                                    Petition disposed of.