INDIBILITY CREATIVE PVT LTD AND OTHERS V GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS AIR 2019 SC 1918:

DATE: 11/04/2019

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta

FACTS:

The case arose from a dispute concerning the screening of a Bengali film titled Bhobishyoter Bhoot (translated as Ghost of the Future), produced by Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd. The film, a satirical political comedy, was granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for public exhibition. It was released in theatres across West Bengal on February 15, 2019, and was screened without incident in several theatres. However, within 24 hours of its release, the film was abruptly pulled down from cinemas, allegedly due to unofficial instructions issued by police authorities. The producers were not given any formal notice or reason for the sudden cessation of the film’s exhibition, which led to concerns about state-sponsored censorship and violation of the freedom of speech and expression.

The filmmakers, aggrieved by the arbitrary suppression of their work, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly before the Supreme Court. They alleged that the actions of the West Bengal state government and police authorities amounted to an unconstitutional and extra-legal ban on the film, despite it having received due certification from the CBFC. The petitioners emphasized that the arbitrary action violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business). Given the absence of any formal ban or written order that could be challenged through a statutory remedy, the filmmakers approached the Supreme Court seeking protection of their constitutional rights and immediate redressal.

ISSUES:

The key issue was whether the State of West Bengal could informally block the screening of a film certified by the CBFC, without any official ban, thereby violating the filmmakers' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court held that the informal obstruction by the State of West Bengal in preventing the screening of the film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was unconstitutional. It ruled that such actions violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Court directed the state to pay ₹20 lakhs in compensation to the filmmakers and emphasized that no authority can curb artistic expression without following due legal process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning rested primarily on the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Article 19(1)(a), which ensures freedom of speech and expression. The Court noted that the film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” had received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which is the statutory authority to regulate public exhibition of films in India. Once certified, the screening of the film could not be lawfully obstructed without a proper legal basis. The Court found that the West Bengal police had taken extralegal steps to stall the screening by informally warning cinema owners of possible “law and order” issues, without issuing any formal order or notification. This amounted to an indirect form of censorship and an unconstitutional suppression of expression. The Court emphasized that the state's role is to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, not undermine them through arbitrary executive actions.

Furthermore, the Court underlined that such preventive measures, taken without adherence to legal procedure, create a chilling effect on free speech and artistic freedom. It criticized the state's actions as a misuse of power and highlighted that informal and oral instructions cannot override certified rights. The Court drew attention to previous precedents where the government’s duty to safeguard fundamental freedoms was reinforced, stating that public intolerance or anticipated unrest cannot justify state censorship unless there is a clear and immediate threat to public order backed by objective evidence. Since no such justification was provided in this case, and the film was removed from theatres without due process, the Court found this a blatant abuse of state power. As a remedy, it awarded Rs.20 lakhs in compensation to the filmmakers for the losses incurred and as a deterrent against similar future infringements.

ANALYSIS:

The case of Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Government of West Bengal & Others serves as a landmark judgment reinforcing the constitutional safeguards for freedom of speech and artistic expression. The dispute arose when the West Bengal authorities informally suppressed the screening of a satirical political film, “Bhobishyoter Bhoot,” despite it being duly certified by the CBFC. The sudden removal of the film from theatres, without any written or legal order, prompted the filmmakers to directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that this extrajudicial action amounted to an unconstitutional curb on their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), concerning free speech and the right to conduct business, respectively.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, strongly condemned the state’s informal censorship and reiterated that the right to freedom of expression cannot be thwarted by arbitrary executive interference. The Court emphasized that once a film receives certification from the CBFC, it enjoys protection under the law, and any disruption must be rooted in established legal procedure. It found the actions of the West Bengal police—based on unwritten warnings and law-and-order concerns—to be a misuse of state power and a violation of constitutional principles. The Court held that the state’s conduct created a chilling effect on creativity and expression, ultimately awarding Rs.20 lakhs in compensation to the filmmakers. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting civil liberties from executive overreach and highlights the importance of due process in matters concerning fundamental rights.