Film censorship challenge fails where petitioner lacks standing and Section 6 cannot be invoked on the facts.

The Court declined to direct revocation of a film's censor certificate because the petitioner was not shown to be a person aggrieved, and the certification granted by the competent authority had not been independently challenged. It held that Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 could not be invoked on the facts, particularly where the petitioner had approached the Court before waiting for action on the representation. The Court also noted that the film's content was a matter of expression to be viewed by the audience in its own perspective, and the request for revocation was therefore not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for revocation of the censor certificate issued for the film, and whether Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 could be invoked on the facts.

Analysis: The petition challenged the film's depiction of GST-related facts and alleged that the certification suffered from non-application of mind. The Court held that the petitioner was not shown to be a person aggrieved, that the certification granted by the competent authority had not been independently challenged, and that the statute did not support immediate invocation of Section 6(1) or Section 6(2) in the circumstances. It also noted that the petitioner had approached the Court without waiting for the authority to act on the representation and that the film's content was a matter of expression to be viewed by the audience in its own perspective.

Conclusion: The request for revocation was not made out and the writ petition failed.

---