SHC clears ‘Maalik’ for screening

Karachi

The Sindh High Court quashed on Tuesday the federal government’s notification for the ban on the exhibition of the movie Maalik observing that the withdrawal of the film certificate by the censor board chairman was in violation of the law, writes Jamal Khurshid.

Ashir Azeem, the writer and director of Maalik, had approached the court against the information and broadcasting ministry’s decision to withdraw the film’s certificate for exhibition.

The petitioner submitted that the Sindh board of film censor had issued a provisional certificate on April 6 for the exhibition of the film and it was also cleared through the Islamabad censor and Punjab censor boards.

He submitted that despite the exhibition of the film for three weeks in the country’s cinemas, first the provincial board of film censor suspended the certificate on April 26 which was withdrawn on the same date but on April 27, the information and broadcasting ministry declared the film uncertified under the Motion Picture Ordinance, 1979 across the country.

He submitted that the movie was based on social issues and the negative political system and did not target the current political government, institution or any other authority. The petitioner’s counsel, Farogh Naseem, submitted that the federal government’s censor board had no authority to de-certify the exhibition of the film as after 18 the amendment the issue of censorship was devolved to the provincial censor board. The federal law officer submitted that the federal government had banned the exhibition of the movie after receiving several public complaints from different sections of the society against it.

The additional attorney general submitted that the federal government could take action over an act which involved national security.

He submitted that the content of the film was objectionable and in this context the federal government had made the right decision to de-certify the film.

An SHC division bench headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah after hearing the arguments took notice of the conduct of the chairman of central board of film censor, who at first instance on the recommendation of five panel members including two very sensitive institutions of Pakistan Army had issued a censorship certificate declaring the film fit for exhibition and then on receiving some complaints without ascertaining their  genuineness or verifying its contents, sent a summary to the information ministry for action under Section 9 (2) (a) of the Motion Picture Ordinance, 1979.

The court observed that the summary did not even suggest that the chairman had examined the complaints, verified them or seen the film and found the complaints correct.

Besides, the court also noted that even the information secretary while directing the decertification did not record his satisfaction in respect of the factors provided in the provision annexed to the Section 9 (2) (a) of the ordinance and without seeking an explanation from the petitioner had approved the decertification.

The high court observed that revising power conferred on the respective governments under the Section 9(2) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979 are to be exercised consciously not only because a penal action was envisaged but it also empowered the federal and provincial governments to reverse the decision of the penal members of the Central Board of Films Censors who after examining the contents of the film had certified it fit for exhibition.

Therefore, the court observed that the federal or provincial government while deciding to exercise the powers under the Section 9(2) had to give a show-cause notice to the producer, exhibitor or distributor etc and also provide them with all the material on the basis of which the action had been taken so that they could properly respond to the allegations.

Besides, the court noted, the officer of the federal government, exercising such powers, after examining the film, keeping in mind the complaints and response before un-certifying the film, had to record his satisfaction that it was necessary to do so in the interest of the glory of Islam or integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or to prevent commission of, or incitement to, an offence.

The court observed that in this case, both the chairman of the Central Board of Film Censor as well as the federal secretary in a mechanical manner had acted on merely on complaints without verifying them.

The high court held that both the government officers had not only violated the principle of the right of hearing of the other side but their order was in clear derogation of the Section 9(2) of the Ordinance of 1979 which could not be sustained.