Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of ‘Faraaz’, Directs Filmmakers To ‘Scrupulously Adhere’ To Disclaimer

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to stay release of filmmaker Hansal Mehta’s movie Faraaz which is based on the terrorist attack that took place on July 01, 2016, at Holey Artisan, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh directed the filmmaker and producers to “scrupulously adhere” to the disclaimer which states that the film is inspired by the attack and elements contained in it are pure works of fiction.

The court was hearing an appeal moved by two women, who lost their daughters in the attack, against the order of the single judge who had refused to grant interim relief against release of the movie. 

Hansal Mehta and producers had given the disclaimer in an affidavit before the single judge.

Refusing to stay the film’s release, the bench observed that the disclaimer takes care of the concerns of the mothers.

“If the film has already been transmitted electronically, how can they make change now? Sorry we can’t help you,” Justice Mridul told counsel appearing for the two women.

The court adjourned hearing in the appeal at the request of counsel appearing for the mothers to seek instructions on further prosecution of the appeal.

“However, it is made clear that the respondents shall scrupulously adhere to the disclaimer extracted in the judgment of the single judge,” the court said.

The court also took note of the categorical submission made on behalf of the respondents that the pictures or images relating to the daughters do not feature in the film.

The disclaimer, as recorded in the order of single judge, reads as:

”this film is inspired by the attack that took place at the Holey Artisan Bakery, in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 01st July, 2016. Elements contained in this film are pure works of fiction. It is not a documentary and does not claim to accurately reflect those incidents that may have occurred on that dark and horrific night. Certain characters, institutions and events in the film are composites/dramatized/fictional and have been used for cinematic reasons and for dramatizing the performances portrayed in the film. The makers have taken creative liberty in dramatizing/ fictionalizing events show in the film. The produce(s)/ director/writers do not endorse, warrant, represent or make any claim pertaining to the accuracy or historical correctness of any event(s) and/or incidents shown in the film. The makers fully acknowledge and respect other perspectives and viewpoints with regards to the subject matter of this film. No identification of any actual persons, places, buildings and products is intended or should be inferred.”

The matter will now be heard on February 22.

Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 113