XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION .

BEFORE THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI

THE CASE CONCERNING THE BAN ON EXIBITION OF MOVIE

BETWEEN

MR. ABHISHEK PANCHPAN APPELLANT

V.

MR. RAM GOPAL SHARMA RESPONDENT NO. 1

VIDEOTUBE.COM RESPONDENT NO. 2

APPEAL (Civil) No. _____ / 2016

MEMORIAL FOR APPELLANTS

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 2

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................. 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................... 7
ISSUES INVOLVED................................................................................................................. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................10
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IN THE SCRIPT WERE AGAINST MORALITY?

1.1 Morality

1.2 Contract void

ISSUE-2 WHETHER THERE WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE OF

CONTRACT?

2.1 Condition for application of Section 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

2.2 Frustration despite express provision

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE ACTOR HAS COPYRIGHT OVER THE SCENES PERFORMED
BY HIM?

3.1 Performer, Performance, Performer Rights

3.2 International Conventions

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE MOVIE SHOULD BE BANNED SINCE THERE IS PUBLIC

INTEREST INVOLVED OR NOT?

4.1 Public Interest and Public Exhibition Guidelines

PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................20
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 3

List of Abbreviations

AIR All India Report

Art. Article
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
Hon'ble Honorable
Art. Article
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PM Prime Minister
V. versus
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
W.B. West Bengal
UOG Union of Gotham
INC. Incorporated
CORP. Corporation
PVT. LTD. Private Limited
I.T. Information Technology
COMM. Commercial
LR. Law Report

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 4

A. STATUTES
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
CODE FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT, 2012.
INDIAN CINEMATOGRAPHY ACT, 1952.

B. CASES
Kunjilal Manohar Das v Durga Prasad Debi Prasad AIR 1920 Cal 1021.
Ram Kumar v PC Roy & Co AIR 1952 Cal 335.
Bansilal Fomra v Thadava Co-op Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd, (1976) 1 MLJ
39
BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251.
Dharmaprachar Sabha v. Union of Indi, (2014) W.P(C) No. 7969/2014.
J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two) [1990] I Lloyd's Rep 1.

Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207.

Neha Bhasin vs. Anand Raj Anand and Anr , 2006 INDLAW DEEL 377, 2006 (132) DLT
196.
Raghunath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi, (2006) SCC Online DEL 221.
Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104.
Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, 11CV348 (N.D. Ohio. 2011).
Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1.
T.A. Quereshi (Dr.) v. CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 759.
Trade and Transport Inc v Lino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 144.

Union of India v C Damani & Co, AIR 1980 SC 1149.

Union of India v C Damani&Co, AIR 1980 SC 1149.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 5

V. Ramesh v. Director general of Police, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8705.

Walamji Lalji v Anil Chandra Bangal AIR 1975 Cal 92.
C. BOOKS

1. INDIAN PENAL CODE, RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL.

2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008.

3. JAIN M.P., CONSTITUTION OF GOTHAM, 1950.

4. LAW OF COPYRIGHTS, ALKA CHAWLA
5. LAW RELATING TO COPYRIGHTS, V.K. AHUJA.

6. POLLOCK N MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

7. THE BARE ACT, CODE FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

D. ONLINE SOURCES
1. SCC ONLINE
2. LEGAL SERVICES INDIA
3. LIVE LAW
E. CONVENTIONS

1. Rome Convention, 1961

2. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996)

3. Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performance, 2012.

4. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994)

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondents are before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, has invoked the
appellate jurisdiction of the court under Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the
issuance of order in favor of the order of the Trial Court;

Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states as follows:-

Appeal from original decree (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed
by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the
decisions of such Court.

(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.

(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.

(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
cognizable by Courts of Small Cause, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 7

In Mumbai, the capital city of Maharashtra, There had been extensive debate among people
on the issue of homosexuality and had resulted in disruption among the orthodox thinkers
of the community. Abhishek Pachpan, came to Mumbai in 1995 to try his luck in referred to as
Bollywood. Later Mr. Pachpan became a renowned actor of Bollywood so much so that he was
considered as the God of Indean Cinema.

II

In the interview Abhishek contended, I am born and brought up at a place where all this is
forbidden in public. I still support my views against such scenes on-screen. If offered, I will
refuse. Producer and Director Mr. Ram Gopal Sharma approached Mr. Pachpan to play main
role in his upcoming movie IPC 377 and perform role of homosexual. Videotube.com was
given exclusive rights over the broadcasting rights of the movie. IPC 377 was a movie dealing
with a politically and socially burning issue i.e. legality and reality of homosexuality. The news
of signing IPC 377 was concealed from public until the shooting was completed as the
Producer of the movie believed that the subject of the movie was controversial and situations
may arise hampering the movie shoot.

III

After recent decision of the Supreme Court of Indea, upholding the validity of Section 377 of the
Indean Penal Code (IPC), Ram Gopal Sharma decided to amend the movie script. Sharma
amended the script and sent it to Mr. Pachpan. He refused to continue with the movie and
contended the script must be restored to original or I will reconsider my engagement with the
movie. A year later, the movie was released on videotube.com. The movie showed very
intimate scenes between two male actors, one of which could be understood to be Mr.
Pachpan. He instituted a defamation suit against the Producer of the movie; the Civil Court of
Mumbai heard the petition on daily basis and granted relief in favour of Mr. Sharma. Now Mr.
Abhishek appealed before the Honble high court of Mumbai.

ISSUES INVOLVED
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 8

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE SCRIPT ARE AGAINST MORALITY

AND WHETHER THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE RENDERED VOID?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THERE WAS IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT CAUSED

BY MR. SHARMA?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP LIES WITH MR. PACHPAN FOR THE
SCENES PERFORMED BY HIM AND WHETHER HIS PERMISSION IS ESSENTIAL FOR
THE RELEASE OF MOVIE?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE PASSING OF ORDER AGAINST VIDEOTUBE.COM BE CONSIDERED

AND WHETHER THE MOVIE BE BANNED BEING IT AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 9

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE SCRIPT WERE AGAINST

MORALITY, WHETHER THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VOID?

It is humbly submitted before the court that the amendments made in the script are totally against
morality and thus the contract should be rendered void. In the present case the agreement was
between the actor of the movie and the director, in a matter that the actor shall perform the
assigned roles in the movie to which he also readily gave his consent and thus agreed to the
terms and conditions of the agreement. But the question of causing injury to the morals of the
society enters where there was an addition of intimate scenes in the movie.

ISSUE-2 WHETHER THERE WAS IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT?

It is to contend that there was impossibility of performance of contract caused by Mr. Sharma
and thus the actor should not be held liable. Firstly, there was no contract between Mr. Sharma
and Mr. Pachpan concerning the addition of intimate scenes in the movie and that such
amendment in the movie script was informed to the actor after the amendment has actually been
made.

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE ACTOR HAS COPYRIGHT OVER THE SCENES ?

It is hereby to contend that the right of performance of any act in the movie is solely with the
actor. The performers basically perform the work of disseminating and broadcasting the works of
the authors to the public. Though the rights of the actor came into recognition after the mid-20 th
century, but still it grants the actor exclusive rights to perform in the movie.

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE MOVIE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM VIDEOTUBE.COM?

Being the addition of intimate scenes to the movie and that too depiction of the same in public is
really obscene and that showing of such scenes in the movie should be banned. According to the
guidelines issued in the Cinematography Act, 1952, this movie cannot be exhibited for public
view.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 10

dxARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE CONTRACT WERE

AGAINST THE MORALITY AND HENCE WHETHER IT CONSIDERS TO HAVE
BEEN VOID?

It is being humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the amendments made in the contract,
i.e. the introduction of intimate scenes, are against the morality and by virtue of section 23 of
Indian Contract Act, 1872, the contract should have been rendered void;

1.1 MORALITY

Morality may be scoped as judgments (rules, principles, ideals, etc.) that pronounce actions and
agents to be right, wrong, good, bad, etc., simply because of the effect they have on the feelings,
interests, ideals, etc., of other persons or centres of sentient experience, actual or hypothetical (or
perhaps simply because of their effects on humanity;

Morality in general is art of directing actions of men in such a way as to produce the
greatest possible sum of good; Legislation ought to have precisely the same object, Morality
commands each individual to do all that is advantageous to the community 1;

1.1.1 That the amendments made in the script were against morality

According to the definition or scope of morality it is performing intimate scenes produces no

possible sum good and it is also not in any manner advantageous to the community; the intimate
scene between homosexual cannot be termed as moral in this respective society; the reaction of
the citizens of the society itself declares that intimate scene between homosexual is against the
morality of the society;

With reference to the case of Raghunath Pandey v. Bobby Bedi,2 in which it has been decided
that in any film made on commercial basis, dramatic effect of certain scenes has to be allowed as
it is importance of featured films as a medium of education and spreading a particular message
cannot be undermined; in the said case as well the introduction of intimate scenes particularly

1 Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207.

2 (2006) SCC Online DEL 221.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 11

after the Supreme courts Judgment on homosexuality serves as a medium of education to the
society and hence the message is delivered while entertaining the people;

Morality of the country differs from society to society and medium of films, it educates the
adolescents and other members of society; if a movie shows a intercourse between two
homosexual person, this will create curiosity between the developing generation of the country
and is also one of the reason of the Supreme Court to upheld the validity of Section 377 of
Indian Penal Code, 1870,

In addition to this, the appellant had no problem with being a homosexual as he had signed
the contract of the picture earlier; the problem is with the amendment made in the script
i.e. addition of intimate scenes;

1.2 CONTRACT VOID

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless -It is forbidden by law; or is of

such nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent; of
involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as
immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an
agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is
unlawful is void.3

1.2.1Morality

Morality differs from society to society, performance of homosexual scenes may be immoral for
one but moral for the one who is performing it on-screen, Morality has a very wide scope and
each and every thing in the society need not be taken in context of morality, Cases have to be
decided on legal principles and not on ones moral views;4

Court is not concerned with morality, its concern with the legislature, Law cannot be interpreted
on moral principles, and moral obligation cannot be converted into a legal obligation;5 In this

3 Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872.

4 T.A. Quereshi (Dr.) v. CIT, (2007) 2 SCC 759.
5 Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 12

case, the performance of intimate scenes by two homosexual is a criminal offence by variance of
Supreme Courts Judgment;

Apart from this, right from day 1, the appellant is totally against the performance of Intimate
Scenes and there is no point of injecting intimate scene by virtue of contractual term totally
changes the meaning and scope of the contract; Now it is up to the actor whether the
performance is to be done or not; he is not bound by the performance of the contract by virtue of
Section 62 of Indian Contract Act, 1872;

1.2.2 Public Policy

Public policy is the fundamental policy of law, principle of law that ensures-

(i) Justice, (ii) Fair play, (iii) Transparency, (iv) Objectivity, and (v)Promotes probity in
discharge of public functions;

And anything opposed to these principles is opposed to public policy;6

By clearly saying no the director at the first instance, it is, hereby, ensured that Transparency,
Fair play comes to picture, and about written notice from the side of appellant, the intension of
the appellant was not to terminate the contract; Hence there no lack of transparency from the
appellant side;

Regarding Justice, it was totally unjust to the Appellant as no consent was being given by the
actor to perform intimate scenes by his likeliness as stated in the clause 9 of the contract; and
there is no discharge of public function in this case as it creates very dissatisfaction and disturbs
unity of the society

Hence, the amendments made in the contract were against morality and the contract must be
rendered void.

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THERE IS IMPOSSIBILITY FROM THE SIDE OF MR.

SHARMA?

6 BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 3 SCC 251.

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 13

It is humbly submitted before the Honble high court of Mumbai that the amendments in the
contact causes impossibility of performance of contract and hence the appellant must not be held
liable;

2.1 Conditions for Application of the Second Paragraph of Section 56

The following conditions7 are essential before s 56 becomes applicable: (a) valid and subsisting
contract between the parties; (b) there must be some part of the contract yet to be performed; and
the contract after it is entered into becomes impossible of performance;

There is a valid contract between the parties before the amendments as both the parties have
agreed to the contract; there was some part of the movie yet to be performed as only 95% of the
movie was being completed; By amendment in the contract, the whole base of the contract has
now changed and there exists the total impossibility of the contract; The amendment in the
contract is totally impossible and opposed to public policy at large;
The doctrine of frustration operates to excuse from further performance where: (a) it appears
from the nature of the contract and the surrounding circumstances that the parties have
contracted on the basis that some fundamental thing or state of things will continue to exist,
or that some particular person will continue to be available, or that some future event,
which forms the basis of the contract, will take place; and (b) before breach, an event in
relation to the matter stipulated in (a) renders performance impossible or only possible in a
very different way from that contemplated, but without default of either party. 8

2.2 'Becomes Impossible'

The word 'impossible' has been used in the section not only in the sense of physical or literal
impossibility of performance, but also covers cases where the performance may be
impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose, which the parties had

7 Walamji Lalji v Anil Chandra Bangal AIR 1975 Cal 92.

8 J Lauritzen AS v Wijsmuller BV (The Super Servant Two) [1990] I Lloyd's Rep 1.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 14

in view.9 The circumstances discharging the contract on this ground may be grouped usefully
under heads.10

In Bansilal Fomra v Thadava Co-op Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd 11 , the theory of
implied term was stated as a basis of frustration. Such intention can be gathered from
surrounding circumstances, the conditions under which the contract was entered into, the
compelling dents that the law would make in it for the general good and welfare of the
community. If such an irresistible intention was at the back of mind of the parties, then a court,
taking all the circumstances into consideration, would imply a term in the contract;

In Union of India v C Damani&Co 12 , the Supreme Court has also observed that there was an
implied condition in ordinary contracts that the parties shall be exonerated in case, before the
breach, the performance became impossible on account of physical causes or legal prohibitions.

2.3 Frustration Despite Express Provision

A supervening illegality will frustrate a contract in spite of a provision to the contrary in certain
cases; a contract to deliver copper to a German company from 1911 to 1919 was frustrated in
spite of specific provision for suspension during the war, on the ground of public policy.13

As it is proved in the Issue 1 that the amendments in the contract were against public policy;
hence, despite having provision in the contract, it can be suspended on the ground of public
policy;

ISSUE 3- WHETHER THE COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP LIES WITH MR. PACHPAN

FOR THE SCENES PERFORMED BY HIM, AND WHETHER HIS PERMISSION IS
ESSENTIAL FOR THE RELEASE OF THE MOVIE?

9 Ram Kumar v PC Roy & Co AIR 1952 Cal 335.

10 Kunjilal Manohar Das v Durga Prasad Debi Prasad AIR 1920 Cal 1021.
11 (1976) 1 MLJ 39.
12 AIR 1980 SC 1149.
13 Trade and Transport Inc v Lino Kaiun Kaisha Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 144.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 15

It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that actor have copyright over the scenes
performed by him;
3.1 PERFORMER, PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMER RIGHTS
Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(qq) states that performer a Performer includes an actor,
singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake charmer, a person delivering a lecture
or any other person who makes a performance ;
Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(q) says that performance in relation to performers right, means
any visual or acoustic presentation made live by one or more performers;
Copyright Act, 1957, s. 38 says that if any person during the continuance of performers right
without the consent of the performer does any of following acts in respect of the performance or
a substantial part thereof he will be deemed to have infringed the performers rights: Reproduces
a sound recording or visual recording of the performance which was;
Made without the consent of the performer;
Made for the purposes different from those for which the performer given his
consent;
Made for purposes different from those referred to in sec 39 from sound recording or
visual recording which was made in accordance with s. 39(acts not constituting
infringement);
According to section 38(b)14 , the performer of a performance shall, independently of his right
after assignment, either wholly or partially of his right, have the right,-

(a) To claim to be identified as the performer of his performance except where omission is
dictated by the manner of the use of performance; and
(b) To restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification
of his performance that would be prejudicial to his reputation;

Explanation- For the purpose of this clause, it is hereby clarified that mere removal of any
portion of a performance for the purpose of editing, or to fix the recording within a limited
duration, or any other modification required for purely technical reasons shall not be deemed to
be prejudicial to the performers reputation;

14 The copyright (amendment) Act, 2012.

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 16

Neha Bhasin vs. Anand Raj Anand and Anr 15

The court observed that, It is essentially the reproduction of the performance through sound or
visual recordings without the permission of the performer that is prohibited. Every performance
has to be live in the first instance whether it is before an audience or in a studio. If this
performance is recorded and thereafter exploited without the permission of the performer then
the performers right is infringed. So, as regards the performers rights, the plaintiff definitely
has a serious triable case;
3.2 International Conventions

The concern of the performers has been addressed in four major international instruments: Rome
Convention, 1961; TRIPS 1994, WPPT, 1996 and Beijing Treaty, 2012;

Intern national Convention for the protection of Performers, Producers, Phonograms and broad
casting Organizations (Rome Convention 1961)

Rome Convention, 1961 granted following rights to the performers under Article 7:

(1) Right to prevent the broadcasting and communication to the public of their live
performances without their consent;

(2) Right to prevent fixation to their live performances without their consent;

(3) Right to prevent reproduction of the fixation to their live performances without their consent
under the following circumstances;

If reproduction is made for purposes different from these for which the performers gave their
consent if the original fixation is made in accordance with permitted exceptions under Article 15
and the reproduction is made for purposes different from referred to in Article 15;

Article 7 further deals with relations between performers and broadcasting organizations; If the
performers and broadcasting then, it shall be a matter for the domestic law of the contracting
State where protection is claimed to regulate the protection against re-broadcasting, fixation for
broadcasting purposes and the reproduction of such fixation for broadcasting purposes; However,

15 2006 INDLAW DEEL 377, 2006 (132) DLT 196.

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 17

domestic law shall not operate to deprive performers of their ability to control by contract, their
relations with broadcasting with broadcasting organizations;

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994)

India being a signatory of TRIPS it had to bring some amendment in the Indian Copyright law,
provisions were made for adopting performers right under Article 14 of TRIPS;

Article 14(1) state that in respect of fixation the performers shall have the right to prevent the
acts of their unfixed performances, acts undertaken without their authorization such as
broadcasting and communicating live performers to the public;16

WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996)

The WPPT expanded the horizon of protection for performers, producers of phonograms and
broadcasters; The WPPT, 1996 there was an amendment of 2012 which introduced moral rights
that states performer shall independently of his right after assignment, either wholly or partially
of his right, have the right to prohibit the unauthorized broadcast and public communication of
their performances;

Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performance, 2012.

The Beijing Treaty on Audio Visual performance (June 26, 2012) which includes, the traditional
media and digital networks, such treaties will help in safeguarding the rights of the performers
against the unauthorized use of work;

Exhibiting the movie without the Performers consent is the unauthorized use of work of
performer and also breaches the contract provision of DVD; No DVD has been given to the actor
of his performance before or after broadcasting of the movie;

Hence, the performer has the right over the scenes he performed and it cannot be broadcasted
without his consent.

ISSUE 4- WHETHER THE MOVIE SHOULD BE BANNED SINCE THERE IS NO

PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED?

16 Alka Chawla Law of Copyright: Comparative Perspective,(1st Edi.2013).

 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 18

It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that there is no public interest involved in the
movie and the movie should be banned from Videotube.com;

4.1.1 PUBLIC INTEREST;

The welfare of the people or public as compared to that of a private individual; all of the
society has a stake in this interest and the government recognizes the promotion and protection
of general public17. This is what is known as public interest.

The biggest proof of the fact that depiction of intimate scenes in the movie are against the public
policy is the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz
Foundation18 where the court expressed its view point that homosexuality is totally against the
public policy and that the movie that tend to have some or the other sexual content involved are
opposed to public policy in general; obviously, when something is against public policy tend to
be against public interest; In the present matter, where the respondent is contending that such sort
of movies have some sexual content involved is totally invalid; Message to the people regarding
the current legally and socially burning issue that is homosexuality can even be given by not
incorporating the intimate scenes in the movie;

4.2 Public Exhibition

Section 5B19 provides that a film shall not be certified for public exhibition, if in the opinion of
the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part thereof is against, (i) the
interests of the security of the State; ii) friendly relations with foreign States; iii) public
order; and, iv) decency or morality; (v) involves defamation or contempt of Court; or (vi) is
likely to incite the commission of any offence;

Sub-section (2) Section 5B empowers the Central Government to issue directions setting out the
principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificate sanctioning films for
public exhibition;

17 Blacks Law Dictionary

18 (2014) 1 SCC 1
19 Cinematography Act, 1952.
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 19

4.2.1 Guidelines for Public Exhibition

In exercise of powers, Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition have been
formulated; The same describe the objective of film certification as to ensure, (a) the medium of
film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society; (b) artistic
expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed; (c) certification is responsible to
social changes; (d) the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment; and (e) the
film is of aesthetic value;

Clause 2 of the said Guidelines requires the CBFC to inter alia ensure that visuals or words
contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented and that visuals or
words which promote communal, obscurantist, antiscientific and antinational attitudes are not
presented;

In the judgment dated 19th November, 2014 in W.P(C) No. 7969/2014 titled Dharmaprachar
Sabha v. Union of India20, held that if the film extols the social evils or encourages it, the same
can be held to be not entitled to certification for public viewing; In the present case, by showing
Topic of homosexuality, is a social and political burning issue and by showing intimate scenes
between the two homosexuals, it extols social evils and encourages it as movie is a medium of
education;

It is bounden duty of the film makers to respect the sentiments of the people and they cannot
simply say that the movie is only a movie; after all the movies are only for the people;21

In the present day scenario, this Court hopes and expects:

(a) Taking into consideration of raise in sexual violence and assault on Women, it is
better film makers avoid eve teasing scenes, rape scenes, obscene scenes, sexist dialogues,
degrading and denigrating Women which is the need of the hour22;

Hence, with reference to the case of Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC,23 The movie should
be banned from Videotube.com as there is no public interest involved.

20 (2014) W.P(C) No. 7969/2014

21 V. Ramesh v. Director general of Police, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 8705.
22 Supra.
23 11CV348 (N.D. Ohio. 2011).
 XI INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION . 20

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;

1. The Amendments made in the contract are against morality and hence, the contract
should be rendered void;
2. There is impossibility of contract caused by Mr. Sharma and Appellant should not be
held liable;
3. The copyright ownership lies with the Actor for the scenes performed by him;
4. The movie is not in public interest and hence should be banned from videotube.com;

And pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY BOUND

FOREVER PRAY

S/D

(COUSEL FOR APPELLANT)