Premature To Examine Objections Against Movie Based On Delhi Riots When Certification Request Pending Before CBFC: High Court

The Delhi High Court has said it is “premature” to examine the objections raised against “2020 Delhi” movie, which is based on 2020 North-East Delhi riots, noting that film's certification is pending consideration before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

“Thus, at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie,” Justice Sachin Datta said.

The Court disposed of four petitions filed against the release of the film and its official trailer on YouTube.

First petition was filed by riots accused Sharjeel Imam. Second petition was filed by five individuals- riots accused Tasleem Ahmed, Akil Ahmed and Sonu as well as riots victims Sahil Parvez and Mohd. Sayeed Salmani. The third petition was filed by Umang- an independent candidate contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly polls. The fourth plea was filed by one Mohd. Rehan.

It was their case that the movie depicts a highly prejudicial and distorted account of the riots and create a false and disruptive narrative having serious repercussions.

Disposing of the pleas, the Court took note of the production house's statement that the CBFC certification for the public screening of the Movie is yet to be obtained and that unless the requisite certification is obtained, the producers shall refrain from public screening of the film, including in theatres.

It was also submitted that pending certification of the Movie, the producers shall not release the same through any social media platform and that the film is a fictional and dramatised account.

The production house also assured the Court that a disclaimer to the said effect shall be displayed at the beginning of the movie and also at the beginning of the official trailer.

Accordingly, the Court observed that the Central Board of Film Certification will suitably consider whether the Movie is suitable for public screening, with or without restrictions.

“As regards the objection that the trailer of the Movie by itself seeks to project a detrimental and distorted version of events, it is again noted that the producers of the Movie have stated that an appropriate disclaimer shall be exhibited/ displayed at the beginning of the Movie's official trailer. The producers of the Movie have also agreed upon the format/contents of the disclaimer…,” the Court said.

It added since the trailer of the Movie would be prefaced by a suitable undertaking, the same dispels any notion or apprehension of the petitioners that the movie or trailer portrays any actual events.

Also Read: High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Release Of Movie Based On 2020 Delhi Riots

About the Petitions

Sharjeel has sought a pre-screening of the movie by the Court. He has also sought postponement of the release the trial the trial in the UAPA case related to the riots is concluded.

Furthermore, the plea seeks take down or removal of all of photos, posters, videos, teasers and trailers of the film till the trial is concluded.

The plea claims that the creators of the film have “intentionally and deliberately” thwarted the legal processes, ignored the constitutional framework and purposefully portrayed a misrepresentative account of the alleged events that took place during the riots.

It submits that the trailer of the film features Imam as the main character, which can adversely affect his right to reputation and right to life with dignity.

The second petition filed by Tasleem Ahmed and others seeks setting aside of the film certificate issued for the release as well as to restrain the release of the movie till criminal cases against them are disposed of.

Counsel for Petitioner Sahil Parvez and Others: Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Mohd. Hasn, Mr. Nujhat Naseem and Ms. Heema, Advs

Counsel for Petitioner Sharjeel Imam: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Mr. Talib Mustafa, Ms. Ayesha Zaidi and Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advocates

Counsel for Petitioner Umang: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Praful Bhardwaj and Ms. Rupam Jha, Advs

Counsel for Petitioner Mohd. Rehan: Mr. Abhishek Budhiraja, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASC, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta , Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Zubin Singh, Mr. Aakash Mishra, Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advs. for R-1/UOI; Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kushagra Singh, Ms. Rudrali Patil, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Anmol Agarwal, Mr. Prateek Arora, Mr. Vikramaditya Sanghi and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advs. for R-3 Mr. Sidhant Kumar and Mr. Om Batra, Advs. for ECI

Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120

Click here to read order