http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 673  of  1998

PETITIONER: YUSUF KHAN ALIAS DILIP KUMAR AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANOHAR JOSHI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/02/2000

BENCH: K.T. Thomas  & M.B. Shah

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J     A film Fire appears to have ignited fire in and out of cinema houses wherein the film was screened for the viewers. The  film produced by one Ms.  Deepa Mehta was permitted  to be screened in cinema houses after the Censor Board of India granted  certificate  under  the  Cinematograph  Act,  1952. 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.    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.

   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 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 respondent) as well as  its  chief leader (4th respondent) were instrumental in instigating the protests  and  they  had also encouraged the  protestors  to resort  to  violence and to indulge in vandalism  under  the pretext  of expressing 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

   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   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  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 bandobast was ordered in front of the residence of the first  petitioner Dalip Kumar, the cine actor, besides registering criminal  case against 22 persons including a Sena.   member of  the Legislative Assembly belonging to Shiv The  deponent referred  to  the  above cases as instances  of  the  strong actions  taken  by the State machinery for dealing with  the situation.

   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 cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

   We  dont  think it necessary to continue with the  writ petition,  mainly  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, 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 dont think it necessary to  consider the allegations.  That apart, since there is no@@     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ allegation   against  the  new   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 motion which may have to be made in future in respect of the cause of action now shown.