'Everybody Is Getting Touchy About Everything Now, Tolerance For Films, Books Going Down' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against 'Adipurush' Movie

The Supreme Court on Friday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking the revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certificate (CBFC) for the movie "Adipurush". The bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to interfere with film certifications based on the "sensitivities of each individual". 

The PIL was filed by Advocate Mamta Rani, who argued that the movie's portrayal of Hindu deities violated the statutory provisions outlined in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Advocate Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, representing the petitioner, argued that the film depicted the deities in a detestable manner. 

At the outset, Justice SK Kaul questioned the petitioner's choice to approach the court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He expressed concerns about an increasing trend of people bringing every minor issue to the Supreme Court, asking if the court should be scrutinizing every aspect of films, books, and artworks. He stressed the need for a certain level of tolerance towards creative representations. Justice Kaul orally said–

"Why should we entertain this under 32? The cinematography act provides for the method to get certificate. Everybody now is touchy about every thing. Every time they will come before the Supreme Court for it. Is every thing to be scrutinised by us? The level of tolerance for films, books, paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt maybe sometimes genuinely, maybe sometimes not. But we will not under Article 32 start entertaining them."

The petitioner contended that the CBFC had not adhered to the required guidelines before granting the censor certificate. Despite the arguments, the bench maintained its reluctance to entertain the PIL. In the verdict, Justice SK Kaul pointed out that cinematographic representations may not be an exact replica of religious texts and that artistic freedom must be balanced with limits. To maintain this balance, the CBFC was constituted as a regulatory body. Dictating the order, Justice SK Kaul said–

"We may say this at the inception itself that cinematographic representations may not be the exact replica of text. There has to be a certain play. However, so that the play does not go beyond a certain limit, a body has been constituted to look into these aspects. In the present case, the certificate was issued by that body and there has been certain modifications made after that too."

The court deemed it inappropriate to address individual sensitivities under Article 32 of the Constitution and emphasized that such issues should not generally be entertained by the courts once the censor board has granted a certificate. It was held–

"It is not appropriate that for each persons' sensitivities, this court should interfere, especially in exercise of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India nor these matters should be generally entertained by courts as the certificate of the censor board is granted. The court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board."

In a separate matter, the Supreme Court also stayed the proceedings in various High Courts against 'Adipurush' movie while issuing notice on a transfer petition and a special leave petition filed by the film's producer.

The petitioner had taken serious objection to the movie ‘Adipurush’ claiming that ‘misleading’ statements have been made in it. As per the petition, besides this, the depiction of the physical features and communication styles of Hindu gods – Rama and Hanuman – were complete distortions of “not only the characters but also the very fundamental values for which they are worshipped”. The petitioner had claimed that such depiction would influence the general public into believing in “different value and morals”. The petitioner further alleged that the depiction of Sita is ‘inappropriate and vulgar’.

Case Title : Mamta Rani vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 713/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order