The Calcutta High Court dismissed a PIL seeking orders to screen the movie The Bengal Files in West Bengal. The Court stated, “State has not imposed any ban directly or indirectly on the screening of the film.”
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), which sought orders to guarantee the screening of the film “Bengal Files” in West Bengal.
The Court clarified that the State government has not imposed any direct or indirect ban on the film.
Justice Sujoy Pal and Justice Smita Das stated,
“The PIL at the behest of the present petitioner cannot be entertained. However, learned Advocate General clearly stated that State has not imposed any ban or prohibition directly or indirectly for screening of the said film.”
The PIL was submitted by an individual who described himself as a social worker and youth activist. He claimed that theaters in West Bengal were refraining from showing the film due to unofficial pressure from state authorities.
He argued that while the film was being screened nationwide, West Bengal audiences were being denied the opportunity to see it.
During the hearings, Advocate General Kishore Datta questioned the validity of the PIL, asserting that only the film’s producers, distributors, or exhibitors could raise such concerns.
He emphasized that, PIL is not a pill for all diseases and indicated that those affected were financially capable of seeking remedies independently.
The Court accepted the State’s position, ruling that the PIL could not be entertained on behalf of the petitioner, but reaffirmed that there was no official or unofficial ban by the West Bengal government. The Bench noted that producers or distributors of the film were free to approach the appropriate channels if they had any grievances.
Thus, while the PIL was rejected, the Court emphasized that the State had not restricted the exhibition of “Bengal Files,” placing the responsibility on the filmmakers to assert their rights.
Advocates Shoumendu Mukherji, Nikunj Berlia, Megha Sharma, Aniruddha Ghosh, and Urvashi represented the petitioner. Notably, on September 23, the Court had questioned the reliability of media reports regarding a special screening in Kolkata and whether there was any evidence of intimidation directed at cinema owners by the State.
The petitioners referenced a public statement by the film’s director, Vivek Agnihotri, alleging intimidation of exhibitors despite the film’s nationwide release on September 5.
When the Court pressed for details, the State Counsel admitted he had no instructions on whether the movie had been screened anywhere in West Bengal.
The Court instructed the State to gather instructions and scheduled the matter for September 26, denying the State’s request to postpone it until after the Puja vacations. The Bench highlighted the time-sensitive nature of film releases, stating that “every week new movies are releasing and such matters should not be delayed.”
The PIL was filed by Sayan Kansabanik, a resident of Nadia, West Bengal, through Advocates Shoumendu Mukherji and Nikunj Berlia.
The petition asserts that while there is no official ban from the State Government, the film has not been screened in West Bengal, creating a de facto restriction that is deemed illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argues that as a citizen, he has the fundamental right to view a film that has been lawfully certified. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has already cleared “Bengal Files,” which is being shown successfully in theaters across the country, except in West Bengal.
The failure to screen it in the State, despite the lack of any formal prohibition, is argued to be an unjustifiable suppression of artistic expression and an infringement of the public’s constitutional right to access the film.
The petition also references several Supreme Court precedents that assert that once a film is certified by the CBFC, it has the right to be exhibited freely and without obstruction.
The Apex Court has clarified that concerns about potential law-and-order issues cannot be used by the State as a reason to prevent the release of a certified film. Instead, the State has a constitutional responsibility to maintain order and protect the rights of filmmakers, theater owners, and audiences. Emphasizing this duty, the petitioner contends that the State cannot use extra-constitutional methods to obstruct the screening of “Bengal Files.”
Rather, it must ensure adequate protection for theaters and citizens wishing to view the film, instead of indirectly hindering its release through inaction.
The PIL thus requests appropriate directions for the Government of West Bengal to facilitate the film’s release in theaters across the State promptly, thereby restoring and safeguarding citizens’ constitutional rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sayan Kansabanik v. State of West Bengal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
