ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Sultan Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The present special leave petition calls in question the legal propriety of the order dated 24th July, 2017, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1947 of 2017, whereby the High Court has declined to quash the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (C.B.F.C) to the film, namely, “Indu Sarkar”. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the High Court has observed that the writ petition was not in the nature and character of a public interest litigation, but in the individual capacity of the petitioner. It has observed certain aspects with regard to the status of the petitioner and finally opined that the petitioner's claim on the basis of unclear status is not acceptable and untenable. As far as the status of the petitioner is concerned, we do not intend to say anything in that regard as that might be ultimately a matter of civil litigation. As far as the film is concerned, the High Court has taken note of the disclaimer, the merger of facts and fiction and the sanctity of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification and non-challenge by anyone else and has, accordingly, declined to interfere. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.1, the director of the film, had given an interview to the television channel, namely, Republic T.V., and in the said interview, he had stated that 30% of the film is based on facts and 70% is fiction and there are certain parts in the movie which refer to emergency and this affects the personal life of the depicted protagonists of that point of time. Be it noted, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a C.D. that contains the trailer of the movie and, therefore, we had the occasion to see the same. It is submitted by Mr. Be it noted, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a C.D. that contains the trailer of the movie and, therefore, we had the occasion to see the same. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that such a projection by the respondent No.1 affects the reputation of the personalities during the emergency era and when there is amalgam of facts and fiction, this Court should interfere and restrain the exhibition of the movie. 5. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, would contend that the disclaimer put forth by the respondent No.1 is absolutely clear as crystal that it has no semblance with regard to living or dead characters of history and, if it is so, it is purely coincidental. It is contended by him that it is a dramatization of a situation portrayed in the movie and, in any case, a film director has the fundamental right to express himself as long as it remains within its boundaries. It is also put forth by him that the Central Board of Film Certification initially had suggested fourteen cuts and, thereafter, the Revision Committee reduced the cuts and the same have been carried out. Learned senior counsel would contend that the respondent No.1 has conducted a proper research and taken the facts from the published books and, therefore, his right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed by a prohibitory order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that so far as the perception of the High Court on status of the petitioner is concerned, there cannot be any dispute, as the issue has been left open. As far as the exhibition of the movie is concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that it is an artistic expression within the parameters of law and there is no warrant or justification to curtail the same. 7. In the result, the special leave petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.