No Judge Will Decide Cases Based On A Film: Bombay HC On Plea Apprehending "Match Fixing" Movie May Affect Malegaon Blast Case Verdict
The Bombay High Court while clearing the decks for the release of the controversial film 'Match Fixing: The Nation is At Stake', said no judge in India would ever decide a trial on the basis of a movie's plot.
A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan pulled up one of the petitioners, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Prasad Purohit, for objecting to the movie's release on the grounds that the same may affect the trial concerning the 2008 Malegaon blast and its outcome.
Justice Colabawalla orally remarked “Are you seriously suggesting that a Judge in India will decide the trial based on a movie? By watching a movie a judge's decision will affect? Are you serious?”
The Court was considering two petitions for the stay of the movie. One petition was filed by Nadim Khan, who argued the film hurts the sentiments of the Muslim community and "perpetuates negative stereotypes against Muslims."
The other petition was filed by Lt Col. Purohit, one of the prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, who claimed that the movie would harm his reputation as an army officer since it was based on his life. He also argued that the movie would affect the free and fair trial of the 2008 Malegaon Blast case. The plea was filed through advocate Dhrutiman Joshi.
The Court noted that the movie is based on a book 'The Game Behind Saffron Terror', which was published 2 years ago.
Noting that the movie is fictional, the Court remarked, “Are you trying to say, that the judge will get influenced by the film but not by the book? Have you checked their disclaimer? It is based on a book 'Game behind saffron terror' it is not based on true events and is merely fictional.”
Rejecting Purohit's contention that the movie would influence the trial, the Court said “Once it is clear that the film is purely based on fiction there cannot be any apprehension that the trial, which is at the stage of final arguments, may get affected.”
The Court further observed that the disclaimer of the movie says it is a dramatic film, which is not intended to outrage any sentiments be it religious, or feelings of any person. It noted that the movie is a dramatised version of the book and that no scene could be taken to be true.
While dismissing Purohit's petition, the Court ordered the makers of the movie to exhibit the disclaimer along with a voice over (reading the disclaimer) at a comprehensible speed so that viewers could hear and read it properly.
As far as Khan's plea is concerned, the bench expressed displeasure over the fact that he moved the court just a few days before the release of the film.
Justice Colabawalla pointed out that in a similar case pertaining to "Hamare Baarah" the Trailer was indeed 'inflammatory' but it was only after watching the movie, it could be seen that the same did not show Muslim men in bad light.
"But in that case, the petitions were filed much prior to the movie's release. And you have approached us at the fag end. The film is set to release tomorrow. In that case, we had time, so we watched the movie and then decided it but in your case, that much time is not available," the judges told the petitioner.
In the instant case, the petitioners argued that the Trailer of the film was objectionable as it flashed "Discover The Truth" and other taglines, which were contrary to the Disclaimer. One of the main objections of Khan, was the use of the word 'Allah-hu-Akbar' in a negative way.
"Same was the objection in that movie (Hamare Baarah). Even we thought that the use of 'Allah-hu-Akbar' was wrongly used in that film. No one will utter God's name before doing anything wrong," Justice Colabawalla underscored.
At this advocate Shreya Fatterpekar, arguing on behalf of the makers of the film, pointed out that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) too raised objections to the use of 'Allah-hu-Akbar' and that the same have been deleted from the film. The submission was supported by CBFC counsel Deepak Shukla.
In view of this, Khan withdrew the petition and the Court permitted the same.
Background:
The petition sought a stay on the film's release on the ground that the Trailer of the film itself contains several 'baseless and false' stereotypes depicting Muslims as perpetrators of violence and promoting hatred against the country.
The petitioner, Nadim Khan, stated that he came across the film's Trailer on October 23 on YouTube and that he was shocked and deeply saddened by certain depictions and references.
"These references are not only disrespectful and disturbing but also contribute to a broader atmosphere of intolerance and misunderstanding toward's the petitioner's faith (Islam). The Trailer contains highly offensive and derogatory content targeting the Muslim community. Though it is prejudicial depiction of Muslim characters, the Trailer promotes stereotypes associating Islam with terrorism and violence. The portrayal undermines the dignity of Muslim community, injures their religious sentiments and creates potential for communal disharmony," the plea stated.
Further the plea pointed out various 'objectionable' facts in the Trailer such as the names of characters which are distinctly Muslim names and are shown to be involved in acts of terrorism. It also points out the use of certain phrases like "Allah-u-Akbar" and "Nara-e-Takbir" in conversations, which propagates hatred towards India.
Case title: Nadim Khan vs Union of India, Through The Ministry Of Information And Broadcasting (WP(L)/33454/2024)