A two-member constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) has issued notices to the Sindh Board of Film Censors and the advocate general of Sindh over the refusal to grant a censor certificate to the award-winning film Ghost School.
The bench, comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Muhammad Jaffer Raza, fixed the matter for hearing on Aug 21.
British-Pakistani filmmaker Seemab Gul and associate producer Muhammad Yousuf Rehman filed the petition, challenging the censor board’s July 9 decision to deny permission for the film’s screening in Sindh.
Representing the petitioners, Advocate Mirza Moiz Baig told the court that Ghost School, written, directed and produced by Ms Gul, highlights the issue of ghost schools and had received international recognition.
He said the film won the Best Director award at the UK Asian Film Festival and premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it was nominated in the Best Film category.
The counsel added that the movie had also been screened at the Red Sea Film Festival in Jeddah and received an honourable mention at the Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles for its social realism and storytelling.
According to the petitioners, the Central Board of Film Censors and Punjab Film Censor Board had already approved the film for public exhibition, while the Sindh board had refused to issue a certificate.
Mr Baig argued that under Section 6 of the Sindh Motion Pictures Act, 2011, a censor certificate could only be refused if a film was found prejudicial to Islam, Pakistan’s integrity, security or defence, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or amounted to an offence or incitement to one.
He contended that the Sindh board’s decision did not cite any of these grounds and was therefore legally unsustainable.
The lawyer further submitted that the Sindh Censorship of Film Rules, 2014 did not impose any restriction on the film’s release in the province. He also argued that the petitioners had not been issued a show-cause notice before the decision was taken and were denied an opportunity to be heard.
After a preliminary hearing, the bench observed that the arguments raised by the petitioners required consideration and directed notices to the respondents and the advocate general of Sindh for Aug 21.
