Find a Lawyer

ABDULLAH MALIK versus MINISTRY OF INFORMATION BROADCASTING

ections Sections 5 and 9 (2) on Organization of Pakistan, Article 19 ature Feature Film - Freedom of Expression - Scope - Report of Film Declared as Unauthorized Film - Legal Information Information The Ministry of Information Satisfaction that a Film and its Content has been violated. The bare rules mentioned in Section 9 (2) (a) of the Motion Picture Ordinance, 1979, were irrational figures to explain the film. The Ministry of Information, however, failed to present a demonstration, in the present case. I either that the decision to explain the film was restored for the right reasons that fulfilled the satisfaction required by the provisions of Section 9 (2) (a) of the Ordinance or that the film and its contents were factual. I was angry about the things in it. The best work of fiction was in the question. Whether or not its plot and the characters presented could match and match the real people of the country or the situation, it was not justified to ban the exhibition of the film - the Central Board of Film Censorship (C \ Censor Board '). Did not find anything objectionable at the opening of the film and gave it the certificate required for public display - after which, the chairman of the censorship board merely recommended the film's investigation to the Ministry of Information. Who, without using his mind, followed the aforementioned recommendation - the Motion Picture Ordinance, 1979, did not permit a movie to be interpreted on the government's value judgment, but rather the matter provided for in section 9 (2) of the Act. Must come within limits. - No alliance with the limitation of permission granted to supply Section 9 (2) of the Ordinance in the notification and reasons for the specification of the said film.

PLD 2017 Lahore 273

Before Shams Mehmood Mirza, J

ABDULLAH MALIK—Petitioner 

versus

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION BROADCASTING and others—Respondents

Writ Petition No.20552 of 2016, decided on 30th September, 2016.

(a) Motion Pictures Ordinance (XLIII of 1979)—

—Ss. 5 & 9(2)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19—Feature film— Freedom of expression—Scope—Notification declaring the film to be an uncertified film—Legality—Satisfaction of the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation that a movie and its content violated the ngrund norms" mentioned in S.9(2)(a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 was a sine qua non for the decertifying the said movie—Ministry of InfÓrm;ation, in the present case, however, failed to present a demonstrable case either that the decision to decertify the film was remised on valid reasons that met the satisfaction required by proviso to S.9 (2) (a) of the Ordinance or that the movie and its contents in fact offended the class of things mentioned therein—Film in question was at best a work of fiction; its plot and the characters portrayed therein may or may not have similarity and relevance to the real persons or situation in the country, but this was not a justification to place a ban on the screening of the film—Central Board of Film Censors ('Censor Board’) at the time of initial screening of the film did not find anything objectionable in it and granted it the requisite certificate for public exhibition—Subsequently, the Chairman of the Censor Board simply recommended decertification of the film to the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation which, without application of mind, acted upon the said recommendation—Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 did not allow decertification of a movie on the value judgment of the Government rather the case must fall within the limitations provided in the proviso to S.9(2) thereof—Notification and the reasons furnished for decertifying the said film had no nexus with the permissible limitations provided for in proviso to S.9(2) of the Ordinance on the freedom of expression—Said notification was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Film "Maalik" was granted a censorship certificate on 06.04.2016 on the recommendation of Central Board of Film Censors (’Censor Board') but subsequently the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation in exercise of powers under section 9(2) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 decertified the said film. Censor Board at the time of initial screening of the film did not find anything objectionable in it and granted it the requisite certificate for public exhibition. Censor Board at the time of reviewing the film did not find the content thereof to be in any way non-compliant of the requirements of section 5 of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 ('the Ordinance'). It was only on the receipt of certain alleged complaints from the general public that the Censor Board took the action of recommending to the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation to decertify the film. No doubt the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation reserved the power to decertify any film in terms of section 9 (2) of the Ordinance. However, such power by virtue of the proviso to section 9 (2) of the Ordinance was circumscribed by the satisfaction of the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation that such decertification was necessary in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or friendly relation with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or to prevent the commission of, or incitement to, an offence. It was evident from the record that no

such determination was made by the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation regarding its satisfaction of the objective criteria provided for in the proviso to section 9(2) of the Ordinance. It* was furthermore apparent that the Chairman of the Censor Board simply recommended decertification of the film to the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation which, without application of mind, acted upon the said recommendation, [p. 280] A & B

Objective of the impugned decision to decertify a film and its underlying reasons must not only satisfy the criteria set out in the proviso to section 9(2) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 but they must be of sufficient importance to override the constitutionally protected right of freedom of expressions. In addition thereto, the means adopted by the decision making authority must pass the proportionality test. In other words, the means employed must be rationally connected to the objective and should not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations and that they be such that their effects on the limitation of rights and freedoms were proportional to the objective, [p. 289] J

R v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 ref.

Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 did not allow decertification of a movie on the value judgment of the Government rather the case must fall within the limitations provided in the proviso to section 9(2) thereof. Satisfaction of the Ministry of InfÓrm;ation that a movie and its content violated the "grund norms" mentioned in section 9(2)(a) of the Ordinance was a sine qua non for the decertifying the said movie. The Ministry of InfÓrm;ation, in the present case, however, failed to present a demonstrable case either that the decision to decertify the film was remised on valid reasons that met the satisfaction required by proviso to section 9 (2) (a) of the Ordinance or that the movie and its content in fact offended the class of things mentioned therein. The film "Maalik" was at best a work of fiction. Its plot and the characters portrayed therein may or may not have similarity and relevance to the real persons or situation in the country. But this was not justification enough to place a ban on the screening of the film. The reasons furnished in the comments filed by the Ministry for InfÓrm;ation for decertification of the film did not meet the requirements of section 9(2) (a) of the Ordinance, [pp. 282, 288] C & G

Messrs Baho Film Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 981 Lah. 295 ref.

High Court observed that ideas were strengthened when they were challenged and were debated and not by acquiescence and enforced silence, [p. 288] H

Notification and the reasons furnished for decertifying the film "Maalik" had no nexus with the permissible limitations provided for in

proviso to section 9(2) of the Ordinance on the freedom of expression. Said notification was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly, [p. 289] K, L & M

(b) Motion Pictures Ordinance (XLIII of 1979)—

—S. 9(2)(a), proviso—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19—Freedom of expression—Scope—Censorship Notification declaring a film to be an uncertified film—Task of censorship was always delicate and a balance had to be struck between the right to freedom of expression and the various limitations mentioned in proviso to S.9(2) (a) of the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Ip. 283] B

Bhagwati Charun Shukla v. Provincial Government AIR 1947 Nag. 1 ref.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan —

—Art. 19—Freedom of expression—Scope—Principle underlying a free, democratic society was that every individual had a right to decide what art he or she wanted or did not want—Similar freedom to create art must also be made available to the artists—Freedom of expression would also apply to artistic work presenting controversial and shocking ideas—Choice, however, remained with the society for rejection of certain expressions of art fÓrm;s that was controversial, [p. 286] E&F

Redmond-Bate v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] HRLR 249 ref.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan —

—Art. 19—Freedom of expression—Marketplace of ideas, theory of— Scope—Said theory postulated a laissez faire approach to the regulation of speech and expression and stated that the success or failure of ideas, theories and propositions would depend on their own merits and demerit—Notion behind said theory was that rational individuals had the capacity to discern through the process of deliberation and exchange of competing ideas to realize the best possible result. Ip. 288] 1

Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919) ref.

Muhammad Azhar Siddique and Sheraz ZaKa for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 14322 of 2016)

Imran Aziz Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents.

Mrs. Samia Khalid, Assistant Advocate General

Date of hearing: 30th September, 2016.

inheritance advocates near Tank lawyer