New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Bombay High Court judgment permitting entry of even uncensored films for selection of National Film Awards (NFAs).

Holding that the requirement was not an unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of filmmakers, a Bench consisting of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and R.V. Raveendran allowed an appeal by the Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF) challenging the July 27, 2006 judgment.

The DFF, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, organises NFAs every year. The awards are given for feature and non-feature films. For the 53rd NFA, the eligibility requirements were prescribed, viz. that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should have certified the films. Documentary filmmakers, Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, aggrieved by the condition, filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Social relevance

Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran said: "The object of the NFAs is to encourage the production of films of aesthetic and technical excellence and social relevance contributing to the understanding and appreciation of cultures of different regions of the country in cinematic form and thereby, also to promote nation's integrity and unity. As this is an annual event, the entries are restricted to films certified by the CBFC during the previous year."

Two objectives

"The decision to consider for awards only those films which are certified by the Board for public exhibition is a policy of the Ministry." This policy, the Bench said, had two underlying objectives: to consider only films which had been released or capable of being released for public exhibition, and to consider the films in the form in which the public would see them.

It said, "the scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy, which the executive is entitled to formulate. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail