P R E S S R E L E A S E

To all concerned so as to stop the mindless speculations going all over the place in the various media outlets I am releasing this press note

My reply to the STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS with regard to "Saavitri" poster

1.

I am the respondent / recipient of the Official Memorandum in SCPCR Case No. 71/2014 and as such I am acquainted with the case and has locus to file this affidavit along with the petition.

2.

I have received the Official Memorandum dated 04/10/2014 from SCPCR addressed to the Commissioner of Police and myself.

3.

BRIEF OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM:

The brief of the information in the memorandum is that the SCPCR has taken up a Suo Moto Case regarding a Movie Poster - 'Savitri' which appeared in Daily news papers on 3/10/2014 which shows a small child looking at his teacher with sexual desires and that the teacher was shown exposing herself and such issue is a violation of Child rights and is against using children for such kind of posters. The official memorandum also contended that it comes under JJ Act, 2000 (Sec 21-26), IPC Sec 292 (1),(2), POCSO Act Sec. 13 and 14 (1) & Young persons (Harmful Publication) Act 1956. The official memorandum also directed the Commissioner of Police to enquire into this matter and submit Action Taken Report by 8/9/2014. It further directed me, assuming me to be the director of the said film to submit a explanatory report

The fact is that the film is produced by Cosmic pictures and directed by Kiran prasad and is only presented by me

b.

The film is about a 15 year old boys infatuation towards a 25 year old woman.The woman is not a teacher as assumed by the concerned...The story is that the boy of young age just sexually awakening and the film is primarily about how he gets affected due to his exposure to pornography and various such other things present in today's culture and also how he is influenced by such things as glamorous heroines and to advertisers using sex to sell their products.

c.

The young artiste featuring in the poster is 15 years of age and is doing his ssc...he is a professional actor who acted in films before too...the parents of the artiste e of his parents.

f.

The parentsartiste are well aware of the story of the feature film and have provided their unfettered consent to it.

5. By basing on the SCPCR Official Memorandum with reference to the Suo-Moto Case it is very unfortunate that the SCPCR has without considering the facts nor verifying it from the concerned people has held that the issue with reference to the feature film poster released with regard to the movie “Savitri” comes under Sec.21 to 26 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, Sec.13 and 14 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act, 1956 and Sec. 292 (1) and (2) of Indian Penal Code.

6. This action of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights is highly preconceived, illegal and against the principles of natural justice apart being contrary to the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

7. It is pertinent to note that this movie tentatively titled "Savitri" is a feature film with an object of putting forth the view of a young person with regard to the infatuation towards the sexual issues.

8. It is also pertinent to note that movie director expects to put forth some issue of the society for dissemination before public with a view to bring discussion about that issue and such action cannot be viewed with a narrow perspective and stamped as illegal nor can be stuck at the very inception with preconceived ignorant notions of some persons. It is necessary for any statutory or constitutional body to protect the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Constitution of India.

9. It is to state that the SCPCR has prematurely stated that the very poster of the feature film attracts different provisions of law without any examination of facts or evidence and without proper application of mind.

10. On legal advise it is to state that the Commission according to The Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 is ought to inquire into the matter pertaining to violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases, but this is a case where it is pertinent to note that the rights of the child – the young artiste are no way affected as he is continuing to pursue his education and the artiste is performing in the movie under the guidance and supervision of his parents and the parents are in complete acceptance of the story. Further there is no exploitation of any of the child rights.

11. It also to further state that as such there is no violation of child rights this SCPCR lacks jurisdiction to further on the issue of a simple feature film poster.

12. It is to state that SCPCR has not properly applied its mind in dealing with the facts on record and with preconceived notions affecting the on the following grounds:

a. It is to state that Sec. 21 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 deals with Prohibition of publication of name, etc. of juvenile in conflict with law or child in need of care and protection involved in proceeding under the act which is generally in relation to juvenile in conflict with law, but the SCPCR has applied this section to the poster of a feature film which is illegal and without proper application of mind.

b. It is that Sec. 22 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 deals with provision in respect of a juvenile who has escaped from a special home or an observation home or from the care of a person but the SCPCR has said that the subject matter of a young artiste working in a feature film comes under this section which is unfair, arbitrary and illegal.

c. Sec. 23 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 deals with the punishment for cruelty to a child which is not applicable in this case as the child is working in the feature film with all his mind in place and with the consent of the natural guardians who are well acquainted with the content of the story of the film.

d. In the film no child leaving aside the artiste is employed for begging but the SCPCR without verification of minimal facts says that Sec. 24 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 which deals employment of juvenile or child for begging is applicable.

e. Neither the presenter, nor the director or for such reason anybody associated with the movie "Savitri" in a supervisory nature of duties have intoxicated liquor or narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to juvenile or child, but the SCPCR stat