Adipurush Row| 'Will UOI Take Steps Under Cinematograph Act In Public Interest?': Asks Allahabad HC, Issues Notice To Dialogue Writer Manoj Muntashir
While dealing with two PIL (Public Interest Litigation) pleas filed against the exhibition of Adipurush film, the Allahabad High Court today asked the Union Of India as to whether it is considering taking appropriate steps in the interest of the public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. For context, the abovesaid provision of...
While dealing with two PIL (Public Interest Litigation) pleas filed against the exhibition of Adipurush film, the Allahabad High Court today asked the Union Of India as to whether it is considering taking appropriate steps in the interest of the public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
For context, the abovesaid provision of the Cinematograph Act provides for revisional powers to the Union government allowing it to call for the record of any proceeding which is pending before, or has been decided by the Central Board of Film Certification. It can do so on its own motion and at any stage.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh also allowed an application seeking to implead the dialogue writer of the movie Manoj Muntashir Shukla as party respondent in one of the PIL pleas, and directed for the issuance of notice to him.
The order was passed earlier today after the Division Bench pulled up the filmmakers of ‘Adipurush’ for portraying religious characters including Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman in an objectionable manner.
"The one who is gentle should be suppressed? Is it so? It is good that it is about a religion, the believers of which did not create any public order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls (wherein the movie was being exhibited) and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well," the bench orally remarked while noting that the CBFC should have done something while granting certificate in the matter.
"Agar hum log ispar bhi aankh band kar len kyonki yeh kaha jaata hai ki yeh dharm ke log bade sahishnu (Tolerant) hain to kya uska test liya jayega? (If we close our eyes on this issue also, because it is said that the people of this religion are very tolerant, so will it be put to test?)," the bench further remarked.
Read more about Court's observations here: 'Why Tolerance Of Hindus Being Put To Test?; Thank Heavens They Didn't Create Law & Order Situation': Allahabad HC Slams Makers Of 'Adipurush'
During the hearing, the Counsel for one of the petitioners, Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, drew the Court's attention towards objectionable coloured photographs of some part of the film in question.
She further drew the Court’s attention towards the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition issued under Subsection 2 of Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to show that not only some dialogues of the film but the picturisation of Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman, Ravan and wife of Vibhishana etc have not been depicted in terms of the guidelines.
Against this backdrop, the petitioner prayed that the Movie may immediately be banned inasmuch as the aforesaid movie may not only affecting adversely the sentiments of the people at large, who worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman etc., but the manner in which the character of Ramayana has been depicted would create severe disharmony in the society also.
On the other hand, when the Court asked the Deputy Solicitor General of India, Senior Counsel SB Pandey as to what he had to say in the matter, he prayed for some time to verify the facts after seeking instructions from the competent authority.
However, he did submit that the Board of Films certification may not revisit the certificate already issued to the film and that as per Section 6 of the Cinematograph act 1952, the revisional power vests with the Central Government.
Further, when he submitted that he has been told that before starting the film, the disclaimer has been shown to the effect that the film is not the Ramayana, the Court, confronted him with the following question:
“…when the film maker has shown Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravan, Lanka etc., then as to how the disclaimer of the film would convince the people at large that the story is not from Ramayana?”
Following this, the Court granted him 24 hours to seek complete instructions from the Union of India, more particularly, from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (opposite party no. 1) and Board of Film Certification (opposite party no. 3) and posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow.
Appearances
Counsel for petitioners: Ranjana Agnihotri, Prince Lenin
Counsel for the respondent: Senior Counsel SB Pandey (Deputy Solicitor General of India) assisted by Advocate Ashwani Kumar Singh (for opposite party no. 1 and 3); Vinod Kumar Shahi, Additional Advocate General of U.P. assisted by Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Kumar Singh and counsel for opposite party no. 2 Vivek Shukla
Case title - Kuldeep Tiwari And Another vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Information And Broadcasting And 13 Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 728 of 2022]