Judgment :- 1. These Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of two writ petitions seeking to delete certain offending portions and scenes from the Tamil film “Naan Petha Mahanae”. The fourth respondent is said to be producer of the Film which is said to have been directed by one V. Sekar. It is said that the Film revoives around two advocates, one, a male, another a female. It is said that the film depicts the personal lives of the two Advocates and their conversation with their clients in court and outside court. Several passages in relation to the two lawyers are extracted which, according the petitioners, are meant to tarnish the image and dignity of a lawyer. The woman lawyer is shown as a violent person. W.P. No. 1502 of 1995 has been filed by an advocate practising in the High Court, Madras. He says that he had gone to the theater with the purpose of getting entertainment, but had to return with disgust after seeing portrayal of the profession of lawyers. According to him, the whole picture gives an impression that the lawyers are indulging in undermining the wealth of the clients and have no interest in disposal of the cases. The writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to review the film and delete offending portion. As many as three Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed in this writ petition. W.M.P. No. 2412/95 is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to delete the offending portion. W.M.P. No. 2413 of 1995 is for the grant of injunction restraining the fourth respondent and his agents from exhibiting the film till the disposal of the writ petition. W.M.P. No. 2414 of 1995 is for the appointment of a panel of lawyers to see the film and submit their report. Notice of motion was ordered in this writ petition on 2.2.1995 and subsequently the writ petition was admitted on 21.2.1995. However, no interim orders were granted. The petitioner has not given the date on which the picture was released. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that the film basically revolves around the mother and son and their mutual affection to each other. It is not meant to depict the lifestyle of a lawyer. However, no interim orders were granted. The petitioner has not given the date on which the picture was released. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that the film basically revolves around the mother and son and their mutual affection to each other. It is not meant to depict the lifestyle of a lawyer. One of the advocates is depicted as a bad person not because of his profession as a lawyer but for the purpose of the story. The film is essentially a social film containing jokes in a lighter manner to entertain the public. The woman lawyer in the film is shown as a bold person and also straightforward person. In fact, her character is such that it is meant to convince others that the legal profession is a noble profession. It is stated that Womens organisation called “Madar Sangam” felicitated the Director for showing the woman lawyer as a bold and courageous person. It is stated that the fourth respondent as well as the Director of the film had no intention of defaming the legal profession. The Advisory Panel which recommended the certification of the film comprised of a senior advocate and a prominent woman member among others. All the characters in the film are fictitious and not meant to disparage the reputation of the advocates or legal profession. It is also stated that the film has been sold to the distributors and has passed several hands and it will be improper at this stage to ban the film or delete the portion thereof. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the provisions of law are set out. The names of the members of the Advisory Panel are also given. It is seen that there were two women members and a senior advocate in the Advisory Panel. The Panel unanimously certified the film for unrestricted public exhibition. The film was considered as feature film coming under the thematic classification as “Social”. The guidelines prescribed by the Board were fully satisfied. The instances referred to in the affidavit are all of a common nature which are very usual in every picture containing jokes about some profession or other. 3. When the petitions came up before me, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the point that the Court should see the picture and then come to the conclusion. The instances referred to in the affidavit are all of a common nature which are very usual in every picture containing jokes about some profession or other. 3. When the petitions came up before me, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the point that the Court should see the picture and then come to the conclusion. In the meanwhile, to give more importance to the case, the Advocates Association, High Court, Madras has filed another writ petition, W.P. No. 3627 of 1995 on 9.3.1995. It is said that the Association is interested in safeguarding the dignity of the legal profession. It is interesting to note that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition does not refer to any complaints made to the Association or to any resolution passed by the Association seeking action against the film. In as much as the first writ petition was admitted, this writ petition was also admitted an 13.3.1995. In this writ petition, there is an Annexure giving all the passages which are said to be in the nature of defining the Advocates. There is a Writ Miscellaneous Petition, W.M.P. No. 5962 of 1995 seeking appointment of a Panel of Lawyer to view the film. 4. I have heard all the counsel representing the parties and I have given my anxious consideration whether it is at all necessary to see the film before taking a decision. Since all the passages which are said to be defamatory have been incorporated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 3627 of 1995, I do not feel compelled to witness the film as such. I will extract below the rough translation of the alleged offending portion. There is a statement that only if a lawyer gets conviction and life sentence for three accused and gets conviction and death sentence for four persons he can be considered as a complete lawyer. I must straightway say that the Bar cannot take offence to this statement which is meant to be a joke. In fact, there is an identical saying against the doctors in the Medical profession. There is another statement which says that a person who does not respect his parents cannot call himself as a lawyer. I must straightway say that the Bar cannot take offence to this statement which is meant to be a joke. In fact, there is an identical saying against the doctors in the Medical profession. There is another statement which says that a person who does not respect his parents cannot call himself as a lawyer. There is another reference to the gown being used for chasing away crows and a man saying that he will use the gown for chasing the crows or even to wipe the table. The only other instance which can be said to be damaging is a statement attributed to a lawyer who says that a client was very rich and his case can be used for relieving himself from all his financial difficulties. The lawyer says that the clients house can be sold and the lawyer can purchase a house. Two lawyers talk to each other and say that they will not allow the case to be settled till they earn enough. From the extracts given in the affidavit it is seen that these are the only offending passages which may have some relevance to the reputation of a lawyer. 5. I am not at all convinced that these passages in the film are defamatory and would cause loss of reputation to the legal profession. Such jokes about lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. are quite common not only in cinema films but also in various monthly magazines and journals. On cannot dispute that such jokes very often appear in innumerable journals and weeklies. Nobody takes objection to such jokes. On the pleadings in this case and the arguments advanced by the counsel I do not think that a case has been made out for reviewing the film or deleting the portions thereof. In my opinion, allegations made in the writ petitions do not come within the provisions contained in Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. In this case, the film has been released and had already been seen by the public for over a period of three months. No case has been made out for invoking Section 5-E or 5-F of the said Act. In this view of the matter all the Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.