Top
Support Independent Journalism, Support Live Law. Plans starting from ₹ 599 + GST
News Updates

CBFC Invites The Ire Of Kerala HC Again For Refusing To Review The Movie ‘Ka Body Scapes’

Manu Sebastian
28 July 2017 9:39 AM GMT
CBFC Invites The Ire Of Kerala HC Again For Refusing To Review The Movie ‘Ka Body Scapes’
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Live Law earlier reported that the Kerala High Court had deprecated the refusal of CBFC Board to review the controversial movie ‘Ka Body Scapes’ for certification. The Division Bench comprising  Chief Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and Justice Raja Vijaya Raghavan had specifically directed the CBFC Board itself to review the movie. However, in violation of the Court’s directions, the Revising Committee reviewed the film, instead of the Board. This led to a petition for taking contempt action being filed by the director of the movie Mr. Jayan Cherian.

In its order dated 13.06.2017 the Court took strong exception to the manner in which the CBFC Board violated the orders. However, the Court granted a month’s time to purge the contempt by directing the Board to review the film. The Court also clarified that the expenses for film screening would have to borne by the Board itself.

But, the CBFC did not comply with the order, despite the indulgence shown by the Court in extending time. Rather, it sought to justify the act of Revising Committee reviewing the film by stating that the Chairman was present in the Committee. This justification was not appreciated by the Court, which observed that there is a distinction between the Board and the Chairman of the Board and that the Chairman is not a substitute for the Board.  Thereupon, the Board sought to explain the non-compliance stating that it involved a lot of financial expenditure.

Not at all satisfied with the explanations of the Board, the Court granted one more week’s time for compliance as a matter of last indulgence. It was warned that non-compliance will result in steps which may not be very desirable.  The matter stands listed to 31.07.2017 for reporting compliance.

Next Story