Sr Adv Gopal: Point is that one Hindu is converted and they say 32000 has been converted.
Sr Adv Gopal cites Firoz Iqbal Khan case: "It does appear that the intent of the episodes was to villify Muslim community...the court is duty bound to ensure compliance to salutory principles...if we permit these propoganda films saying they're non fictional..."
Sr Adv Gopal: If you're making propoganda films and claiming that it is not fiction and it's fact and saying that you've verified it, then the responsibility is very different than a pure fiction movie.
Sr Adv Gopal: We can cut this short if Mr Salve's client agrees to put a statement that this is fiction.
Here there is an interest of minority communities which the state has to protect. Someone who has 7 million followers is putting tweets like this.
Sr Adv Gopal Sankarnarayan: "After completion of the movie, there were slogans raised...there were protests..."
This has happened across many states. There is a substantial difference between fiction films.
Singhvi: 19(1)(a) is not absolute. This (ban) is post screening. It's an exercise of statutory power upheld by the court. And the person refuses to put a sentence that it is a work of fiction.
Singhvi: State of WB has no issue with you watching the movie in your home on your mobiles, OTT. Our objection is to public exhibition of the movie.
Singhvi: This judgement says "Publically exhibit it and then take an action, not a pre screening ban."
Singhvi: Prakash Jha, the case concerning Aarakshan, it says that you are banning without screening, without seeing. It's based on a pre-screening ban.
Singhvi: This is all the intelligence report which came after the movie ran from 3-4 days.