Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Delhi High Court
Shilpesh Chaudhary And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 March, 2013
Author: D.Murugesan,Chief Justice
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                           W.P.(C) No.1492 of 2013
                                           Reserved on: 6th March, 2013.
%                                       Pronounced on: 8th March, 2013.

      SHILPESH CHAUDHARY AND ANR.                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Jaideep Malik along with Mr.
                                       Birender Sangwan, Advs.
                   VERSUS
      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                           ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. Joginder Sukhija along with Mr.
                                       M.P. Singh, Mr. Yogesh Yogi and Mr.
                                       A. Mustafa, Advs. for R-1.
                                       Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. along
                                       with Mr. Sai Krishna Rajagopal, Mr.
                                       Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain,
                                       Mr. Bhuvan Mishra and Mr. Nitesh
                                       Daryanani, Advs. for R-3/Fox Star.
CORAM :-
    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

D. MURUGESAN, Chief Justice
1.    This pro bono publico petition is filed by two Advocates
      practicing law within the vicinity of Delhi.      They have prayed
      for the following reliefs:
             "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordship may
             kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any
             other     appropriate   Writ/Directions/Orders     thereby
             directing      Respondent     NO.1        and     2      to
             quash/withdraw/cancel     the   certification  of    public
             exhibition granted to Respondent No.3 for films Jolly LL.B.

             Any other alternate efficacious further order(s)/relief(s),
             which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view
             of the present facts and circumstances of the present
             case, so as to be the same in the interest of justice."


2.    The grievance is made on the following set of facts. M/s. Fox
      Star Studio India Pvt. Ltd. has produced a film titled "Jolly
      LL.B.", which is likely to be released for public exhibition in
      Cinema Halls on 15.3.2013.           The said producer is airing



W.P.(C) No.1492 of 2013                                          Page 1 of 4
       promotional trailer of the said film on various media of viewing
      such as television, social networking websites, etc. in order to
      market the said films.      The petitioners happened to see the
      trailer of the movie and noticed a scene with the following
      dialogues:
             "Arshad Warshi: alphabet I has been attached to me.
             Judge: what was your name?
             Arshad Warshi: sir my name is jagdish tyagi and my
             friends call me jolly by nick name.
             Judge: from where you have completed you llb?
             Arshad Warshi: i have completed my llb from law college
             meerut.
             Judge: this is how you file a pil. See you have written
             apple for appeal and Prostitution for prosecution.
             Arshad Warshi: madame this child is very innocent. To
             keep his heart the doctor called him inside and I must tell
             you that this child has not touched the patient.
             Client: i have made a biggest mistake in my life by
             keeping you as may duffer lawyer.
             Female actress: we all have to struggle in our lives, you
             are not the only one.
             Arshad Warshi: till today you have not allowed me to kiss
             you.
             Female actress: i will not allow you to kiss me this is not
             your fathers property.
             Arshad Warshi: i want to become indias famous lawyer
             after whom media runs, and when I enter the court room
             everybody should speak my name.
             Booman Irani: there is no case as such, the only case is
             victimization of my innocent client mr. Rahul diwan.
             Background

sound: jagdish tyagi @jolly advocate filed a affidavit before the court and Create hue and cry (khalbali) Other actor: be practical yar Arshad warship: practical went to donkey ass hole I will fight for truth Booman irani: you are a small fry of two panny what you can do.

ARshad warship: i am from merut if I came to know my level I will convert your ass in gurgaon (gand ka gurgaon bna dunga).

Booman irani: he is nothing, he is no body. Arshad warship: in the court room:- i will slap you on the ear then you next seven generation will be born deaf, judge shab give direction him to keep quite or not m saying just do just do just do.

W.P.(C) No.1492 of 2013 Page 2 of 4

Judge shab: keep silence keep silence keep silence and broke the hammer on the table.

Arshad warship: i have heard that law have long hand who say it is gahnta everything is bullshit sala."

3. According to the petitioners, the scene with the above dialogues are not only defamatory, but also amounts to contempt of Court in terms of Section 5B of the Cinematography Act, 1952. As per the provisions of the said Act, visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individual or contempt of Court are not to be presented. It is their further grievance that a set of guidelines have been framed by Union of India under Section 5B of the said Act explaining the aforesaid objection of not showing defamatory visuals and words amounting to contempt of Court as "scenes that contained to create scorn disgrace or disregard of rules or undermine the dignity of Court will come under the contempt of Court". Contrary to the above provision, the Central Board of Film Certification has certified the film for exhibition. In these circumstances, they have approached this Court for direction to the Union of India as well as Central Board of Film Certification to withdraw/cancel the certification given to the film.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel taking notice for the Respondent No.3, viz., the Producer of the film. In our opinion, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage for want of full details. The petition is solely on the basis of trailer, which is being exhibited on television and websites containing the scene with the above dialogues mentioned in the earlier portion of the order. There are no details of the circumstances on which the above dialogues have been included in the scene and for that matter in the film. The petitioners' grievance over W.P.(C) No.1492 of 2013 Page 3 of 4 the scene with the above dialogues appears to be that they obtained LL.B. from Law College, Meerut.

5. A reference is made by an actor acting as an Advocate and the Judge hearing the matter. According to the dialogues, the Judge noticed that in the PIL petition, it was mentioned as "apple" in place of "appeal". Equally, in place of "prosecution", it was mentioned "prostitution". After noticing the same, the Judge asked the individual acting as an Advocate as to from where he has obtained his LL.B. and the reply was that he had obtained LL.B. from Law College, Meerut. In our opinion, this conversion per se does not amount to defamatory or contemptuous affecting public. Maybe, it is a reference to an Advocate who obtained LL.B. from Law College, Meerut. In the affidavit, nothing has been pleaded as to the element of public interest. That apart, the petition is on the basis of trailer and at this stage, it is difficult for us to find out in what context the dialogues were conceived.

6. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE (V.K. JAIN) JUDGE MARCH 08, 2013 pmc W.P.(C) No.1492 of 2013 Page 4 of 4