Ahmednagar court junks plea that YRF needed a censor certificate to show song teaser
The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prima facie prove his case. ‘No loss will be caused to the plaintiff if the application is rejected,’ the judge said.
The court said there was no case made out for the makers of the movie Pathaan to display the Censor Board certificate on OTT platforms.
By Vidya : Holding that no case was made out, a court in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra refused to restrain Yash Raj Films (YRF) from airing their promotional videos on YouTube.
Civil judge PA Patil of the 4th court in Shrirampur was hearing a suit filed by one Suresh Patil, who claimed to be a social worker. He had seen the teaser of the song Besharam Rang from the movie Pathaan on YouTube and claimed that there was no censor board certificate along with the teaser. He therefore wanted the makers of the film to be restrained.
He claimed that the Censor Board rules state that before publishing an advertisement in a newspaper, hoarding, poster, trailer or a teaser it was necessary to show a U/A Certificate which was not there in the Besharam Rang song on YouTube. He argued that as per Rule 38 of the Cinematography Act, it was mandatory to show the certificate. He claimed that because of this, loss was caused to him and the public at large. He added that if YRF was not restrained, then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss.
YRF, on the other hand, raised preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit. They submitted that Patil was misleading the court and that no cause of action was mentioned in the suit. They said that Patil had no locus standi to invest in the suit and that there was no need to show a certificate while publishing an advertisement on any OTT platform. They stated that the requirement was limited to theatrical description of the film and the video description via DVDs. There was no requirement for the certificate to be displayed with the advertisement on internet platforms such as YouTube and it was regulated by the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Delhi man kills live-in partner, stores body in fridge in Najafgarh dhaba, marries same day
Patil had also sought a temporary injunction, but the court said, “The issue of an interim injunction is a discretionary remedy. While granting a temporary injunction, it is necessary to consider firstly, whether the person seeking the temporary injunction has made out a prima facie case. The second consideration is whether the balance of convenience is in his favour, i.e. whether it would cause greater inconvenience to him if the injunction was not be granted than the inconvenience which the other side is put to in case the injunction is granted. And the third consideration is whether the person seeking a temporary injunction would suffer irreparable injury. A mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain a temporary injunction.”
Holding that the burden of proof of the case prima facie was on Patil, the court said that in spite of the claim, no injury was caused to him. The court further added, the plaintiff must come out with something to show foundation for his claim.
The court concluded that Patil had failed to prima facie prove his case. “No loss will be caused to the plaintiff if the application is rejected. The plaintiff is having another remedy. Balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff,” said the court.
