Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the petitioner was not rendered remedy‑less and that the appropriate remedy is the ordinary Letters Patent appeal, not Supreme Court intervention.

Summary

The Pazhassi Raja Charitable Trust sought to have its Malayalam film "Pazhassi Raja" screened as a special entry at the International Film Festival of India 2009, but the Feature Film Jury rejected it. The Trust filed multiple writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, which denied interim relief, prompting a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court alleging a flagrant breach of Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Panorama Regulations, 2009, and a violation of Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether it could entertain the SLP and grant interim relief despite the availability of a Letters Patent appeal, and whether the denial of relief left the petitioner remedy‑less. The Court held that the matter involved a commercial venture, no infringement of Article 21 was shown, and the petitioner was not rendered without remedy; therefore the High Court’s order stood. Consequently, the SLP was dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the ordinary appellate route.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a Special Leave Petition and grant interim relief when a regular Letters Patent appeal is available.
Whether the denial of interim relief by the High Court rendered the petitioner remedy‑less, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether a breach of Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Panorama Regulations, 2009, constitutes a mandatory statutory violation warranting Supreme Court intervention.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142, s. Article 21

Subjects

Special Leave PetitionArticle 21Article 142interim relieffilm festivalIndian Panorama RegulationsLetters Patent appealcommercial venturejurisdictionmandatory regulation

Judgment

"""
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1290
'
'
A PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. "
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32840 of 2009)
DECEMBER 02, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE ,AND SURINDER SIN~H
NIJJAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:
c "
Articles 136, and 142 rAt1 Article 21 - Filing of SLP without
availing remedy of Letters Patent appeal "I'"" Screening of film
at International Film Festival of India, 2009 - Refusal by
Feature Film Jury - Writ petition before High Court for
seeking direction for screening the film as .a special entry -
D
Application for interim order rejected - Plea that remedy of
Letters Patent appeal was available, but in the case of flagrant ...
breach of statutory rules of mandatory nature, Court could
mould relief under Article 142 - HELD: The Court can grant
relief in cases where manifest injustice has been done or
E where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of
jurisdiction - In the instant case, the issue is of a purely
commercial venture, w/1ere the film in question is vying ;ur
fame with another commercial film - It is not disputed that the
film in question has already been releasEJd on the commercial
F sectors - In any evl}_nt, the film is a view point of the
individuals or the te9!T1 involved in the production of the film
-Article 21 can not be said to have been infringed in the facts
and circumstances of the case - It can also not be sf!i~ that
without grant of interim relief the petitioner would be r3ndered
\~--
G remedy-Jess - In case it is ultimately found by t11e: High Court
or in any other proceedings that the Jury/selectors have acted
arbitrarily or in infringement Oi the statutory regulations,
-~
remedy of damages by way of a civil suit would always be

H 1290
PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1291
UNION OF INDIA

,. available to the petitioner - Thus. the petitioner has not been A
rendered remedy-less merely by denial of interim relief -
Besides, the film of the petitioner has to compete with all other
entries - Its entry was dependent upon the relative merit
assessment by the panel of jurors - Its merit cannot be
adjudged individually - The facts and circumstances in the
B
case were not such as to permit the petitioner to bypass the
normal procedure of filing of Letters Patent appeal against the
, order of Single Judge of High Court before approaching the
Supreme Court by special leave petition - Indian Panorama
Regulations, 2009 - Regulation 8. 2 - Films - Interim orders
- Practice and Procedure. c
Indian Panorama Regulations, 2009:

Regulation 8. 2 - Feature Film Jury - Selection of films
to be screened at laterna'fional Film Festival - Writ petition D
before High Court- Interim relief not granted- HELD: In view
of Regulation 8.2, the Chairperson of the Feature Film Jury
has the power to constitute a maximum two panels, for viewing
all the films and to recommend not more than 33 % of the
films to be viewed by the full Jury - High Court has correctly
E
observed that all the issues relating to constitution of panels
will be determined at the final hearing, upon receipt of the
-' counter of the respondents - The Court normally would not
substitute its own opinion for that of the experts - Decision
about the quality and merit of the film of the petitioner can
only be taken in comparison to other entries - That is the job F
of the experts - There is no reason to differ with the view
expressed by the High Court - Order of High Court declining
to grant interim relief cannot be said to be as either illegal or
•\ erroneous - It cannot be said that there was any change in
the criteria - Interim orders - Constitution of India, 1950 - G
... Articles 136, 142 and 21 .

Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241,
held inapplicable.
H
1292 SUPREME· COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R

A Dhannalal vs. Ka/awatibai and others (2002) 6 SCC 16,
referred to.

Case Law Reference:
(2003) 11 sec 241 held inappliocable para 7
B
(2002) 6 sec 16 relied on para 8

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
32840 of 2009.

C From the Judgment & Order dated 26.11.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. Application No. 14682 of
2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13352 of 2009 .
•
Krishnan Venugopal, Deepak Prakash, Usha Nandini, Abir
D Pukan & Biju Raman, M.P. Vinod for the Petitioners.

Ashok Bhan, Sunit Sharma, D.S. Mahara for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered
E
ORDER

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. We have heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr.
Adv. and the counsel for the respondent Union of India, Mr.
F Ashok Bhan.

2. This matter was mentioned yesterday when the Court
directed it to be listed today as Item No.1. The petitioner clairr.s
to have produced a Malyalam film of national importance,
G called "PAZHASSI RAJA". Its purpose is to enligtitr .• people
about the heroic life history of 'SHR! KERALA VERMA
PAZHASSI RAJA". For wider circulation the rnm has been
dubbed into Hindi, Tamil and Telugu and English. It is said to
have been widely acclaimed. The petitioner claims that inspite
H of the artistic and historic importa.1ce of the film, it has been
PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1293
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
arbitrarily not accepted for screening at the International Film A
Festival of India - 2009. ·Aggrieved against the wholly arbitrary
conduct and actions of the selectors at the Film Festival, the
petitioner has unsuccessfully approached the Kerala, as well,
Delhi High Court.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the Learned Single
B
Judge of the Delhi High Court misdirected itself in not granting
the interim relief. In view of the fact that the film festival was
coming to an end on 3rd December 2009, in the absence of
interim relief, the petitioner will be left remedy-less. Learned
" counsel submitted that the Learned Single Judge failed to c
address any of the issues alleged in the writ petition. In view of
the fact that there had been a flagrant disregard of a mandatory
regulation, viz .. the Regulation 8.2 of the Indian Panorama
Regulation, 2009, grant of interim relief would be a natural
consequence . D
.. 4. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High
Court which is pending adjudication. In the aforesaid writ petition
the Learned Single Judge of the High Court has issued notice
to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not E
issued. Necessary direction has been issued for exchange of
affidavits. The matter has been directed to be listed for hearing
on 13th of April 2010. The petitioner approached the High
Court earlier by way of writ petition making similar grievance
as is made in the present proceedings. This writ petition was
F
disposed of on 27.10.2009 by granting liberty to the petitioner
to make a representation to the respondent. Consequently a
representation was made on 30.10.2009. Several issues
relating to the merits of the petitioner's film including its
historical importance as well as other irregularities and
illegalities in the procedure followed by the Jury in the selection
G
process were highlighted. When the representation was not
disposed of the petitioner filed the second writ petition. At the
... motion hearing of the writ petition an assurance was given by
the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner
H
1294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A forthwith Thus, this writ petition was also disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to take a view on the
representation Ultimately. the representation submitted by the .,
petitioner has been deci-Oed on 19.11.2009. The claim of the
petitioner has been rejected. Therefore, petitioner approached
B the Delhi High Court for the third time by way of writ petition
i.e., Writ Petition (c) No.13352 of 2009. In this writ petition a
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.14682 of 2009 was filed
seeking a direction to the respondent for screening the film of
the petitioner as a special entry This Civil Miscellaneous
c Application has been dismissed by the Learned Single Judge
of the Delhi High Court by the impugned order dated
26.11.2009.

5. We may also notice here ·that another aggrieved
producer of another film had approached the Kera la High Court
D with similar relief. Initially a Single Judge of the Kerala High
Court granted interim relief and stayed the screening of all films.
The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench.
Before the Division Bench it was submitted that the writ
petitioner will not come in the way of conducting the festival.
E He would be satisfied if it is ensured that the respondents strictly
complied with the regulation in future. Necessary direction was
issued by the Division Bench to the respondent that it shall
abide by the regulation in future .

.F 6. Mr. Venugopal vehemently argued that if the petitioner
is denied the interim relief the writ petiti~n itself would be
rendered infructuous. Learned counsel also submitted that even
though the remedy of approaching the Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal is available. in the -facts of this case it was
necessary to move this Court as this Court can mould the relief
G under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel
submitted that the superior courts are not powerless to grant
interim relief, even in cases, where there is a flagrant breach
of statutory rules which are mandatory in nature.

H 7. Learned counsel has highlighted three main legal
PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1295
UNION OF !NOIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
issues. Firstly. he submits, that where there is a right there is a A
remedy. In any event according to him the Learned Single
Judge failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not addressing the
controversy in issue. Learned counsel further submitted that this
Court can entertain an SLP in compelling circumstances even
if the normal remedy of Letters Patent Appeal is not availed B
by a party. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel relied
on a judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar vs State of
Haryana, (2003) 11 sec 241. We are of the considered
opinion that the aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the
petitioner. In that case this Court observed as follows: c
"Apart from the salutary powers exercisable by this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete
justice to the parties, the powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution can be exercised by it in favour of a party even
suo motu when the court is satisfied that compelling D
grounds for its exercise exist but 1t should be used very
sparingly with caution and circumspection inasmuch as
only the rarest of rare cases. One of such grounds may be,
as it exists like in the present case. where this Court while
considering. appeal of one of the accused comes to the E
conclusion that conviction of appealing as well as non-
appealing accused both was unwarranted. Upon the
aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Apex Court of the
land, further detention of the non-appealing accused, by
virtue of the judgment rendered by the High Court upholding F
his conviction, being without any authority of law, infringes
upon the right to personal liberty guaranteed to the citizen
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In our
view, in cases akin to the present one, where there is
wither a flagrant violation of mandatory provision of any G
statute or any provision of the Constitution, it is not that this
Court has a discretion to exercise its suo motu power but
a duty is enjoined upon it to exercise the same by setting
right the illegality in the judgment of the High Court as it is
well settled that illegality should not be allowed to be H
1296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A perpetuated and failure by this Court to interfere with the
same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
perpetuated. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are
of the opinion that accused Balwinder Singh alias Binder
is also entitled to be extended the same benefit which we
B are granting in favour of the appellant."

8. In our opinion the aforesaid observations reiterate the
well-settled propositions of law as well as the parameters within
which this court will exercise its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to do complete justice in a particular case.
C But those are the matters which are relatable directly to Article
21 and akin to deprivation of life. In other words issues which
would fall within the category of 'rarest of rare/ ca~es. This Court
can grant the relief in cases: where manifest injustice has been
done: or where there is manifest illegality or manifest want of
D jurisdiction. In the present case we are concerned with a purely
commercial venture, where the film in question "Pazhassi Raja"
is vying for fame with another commercial film called "Mangat
Pandey". It is not disputed that the film "Pazhassi Raja" has
already been released on the commercial sectors. It seeks to
E depict a view point on the first war of Independence which may
or may not be generally acceptable. We are not called upon to
decide on the issue in these proceedings. In any event the film
is a view point of the individuals or the team involved in the
production of the film. We are unable to see how Article 21 can
F be said to have been infringed in the facts and circumstances
of this case. We are also not impressed with the submission
of Mr. Venugopal that without grant of interim relief the petitioner
would be rendered remedy-less. In case it is ultimately found
by the Delhi High Court or in any other proceedings that the
G Jury, selectors of the films to be screened, have acted arbitrarily
or in infringement of the statutory regulations, remedy of
damages by way of a civil suit would always be available to
the petitioner. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Venugopal in
the cas1e of Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and others (2002) 6
H SCC 16 reiterates the principle in the legal maxim Ubi jus ibi
PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1297
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
remedium which translates that "there is no wrong without a A

- remedy. Where there is a right there is a forum for its
enforcement." We have no reason to take a different view on
this legal principle . We are however of the opinion that the
petitioner has not been rendered remedy-less merely by denial
... of interim relief. B
9. We are also not impressed with the submission of Mr.
Venugopal that merely because the petitioner has been vigilant
in projecting the grievance as well as his rights, interim relief ,
ought to follow. The film of the petitioner has to compete with
all other entries. Its entry was dependent upon the relative merit c
assessment by the panel of jurors. Its merit cannot be adjudged
individually.

10. Mr. Venugopal then submitted that the selection
process has been vitiated as there has been a breach of D
Regulation 8.2. The regulation is as under:

"8.2. The Chairperson of the Feature Film Jury may
constitute a maximum of two panels from amongst the
members of the jury. Each panel will recommend not more
than 33 % of the films viewed by it for combined viewing E
by the full jury."

11. A perusal of the above would show that the
Chairperson of the Feature Film Jury has the power to constitute
Av-
a maximum two panels, for viewing all the films and to F
recommend not more than 33 % of the films to be viewed by
the full Jury. According to Mr. Venugopal one of the Jury
members, Mr. Bobby Bedi was not present for 13 out of a total
15 days that the Juries saw the movies. This fact was admitted
by the respondents in the counter filed by them before the High G
Court of Kerala. According to the learned counsel the whole
selection process has been conducted arbitrarily, there has
+ been criticism in the media with regard to the functioning of the
Jury. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, considering the
same submissions, has correctly observed that all these issues H

'-#-·
1298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A will be determined at the final hearing, upon receipt of the
counter of the respondents. The Court normally would not
substitute its own opinion for that of the experts. Decision about
~" .
the quality and merit ofthe film of the petitioner can only be taken
in comparison to other entries. That is the job of the experts.
B We see no reason to defer with the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. It is also held by
the Delhi High court that merely because a person has come
to court, would not ipso facto entitle lhe petitioner to relief on
the very terms on which a prayer is made. In our opinion the
c aforesaid observation cannot be said to be as either illegal or
erroneous.

12. Mr. Venugopal, has then submitted that the selection
process has been altered midway. This was in response to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India
D before the High Court. The learned counsel had also made a
reference to the communication dated 15.10.2009 received
from Mr. Bobby Bedi which was placed before the Delhi High
Court. The response was to the following effect:

E "This is with reference to my appointment as a
member of the above jury.

Due to the change in the final dates for the jury
viewings I had to reschedule some of my travel plans and
~
as a result was unable to attend some of the viewings.
F However, I had discussed this with the Directorate and the ......
chairman of the Jury and my other jury group members and
carried a DVD copy of all the films that I would be missing.
I can confirm that all the films in my group have been seen
by me and discussed with my team members Gautaman
G Bhaskaran and Raja Mitra and we have come up with a
final list of recommendations."
-1-
13. It was also submitted before the High Court by the
learned counsel for the Union of India as follows:
H
"-'
PAZHASSI RAJA CHARITABLE TRUST & ANR. v. 1299
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J~]
"Mr. AS. Chandhlok, learned Additional Solicitor A
General has pointed out that on viewing the film in question,
it was the unanimous decision of the jury not to include it
in the Indian Panorama 2009."

14. We are unable to discern from the aforesaid any 9,
change in the criteria. We have however refrained from
expressing any opinion on the same since the writ petition filed
by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the High Court.

15. We may reiterate that the facts and circumstances in
the present case were not such as to permit the petitioner to C ·
bypass the normal procedure of filing, Letters Patent Appeal
against the order of the learned Single Judge before
approaching this Court by special leave petition.

16. In view of the aforesaid we decline to interfere with the
0
order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High
Court. The special leave petition is dismissed.

R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed.

-..