Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay "Gangubai Kathiawadi" Movie Release Over Alleged Defamation Of Kamathipura

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik disposed of one PIL while dismissing another PIL by MLA Amin Patel and a petition filed by residents of Kamathipura.

The court took exception to petitions being filed last minute and that no one has raised any objections to the certificate issued by the Censor Board of Film Certification.

"Can't expect the court to go out of it's way and grant relief. Just because we are not strict about procedure in PILs, doesn't mean challenge will not be laid. We will be drastically reducing the weight of the certificate (if relief is granted despite no challenge to it)," the bench observed orally while dismissing the two petitions. The court said that a detailed order will be made available later after recording reasons for dismissal.

Advocate Dhruti Kapadia, appearing for MLA Amin Patel, argued that there was no disclaimer in the movie regarding usage of word "Kathiawadi," which is a community and "Kamathipura." She added that social workers have worked for several years to uplift people living in the area. "Let the movie be released with grace and not bring disgrace to any community," she submitted.

Advocate Yogesh Naidu assisted by Sarosh Damania appearing for petitioner Shraddha Surve who is a resident of Kamathipura, submitted that the name Kamathipura must be deleted. "Otherwise this would be akin to portraying Mumbai as a city where all women have low morals," he argued, adding that the changes can be made before the release.

Another petition filed by one Hiten Mehta was disposed of after the bench was informed that the petition was based on a wrong notion. Advocate Ashok Saraogi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that there was a particular scene in the movie in which the main character of the film goes to a dentist and says "aap poora china mere mooh mein..."

Saraogi argued that the petitioner was concerned with the citizens of north India and argued that only because physical appearance of north eastern people matched with people from China, they were being discriminated against. However, the bench was informed by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, instructed by DSK Legal, appearing for the makers of the movie, that the area shown in the movie actually had Chinese doctors and the dentist's board in the movie itself says he is a Chinese doctor.

Kadam, presenting his arguments against the two other petitions, said that the movie was trying to communicate to today's audience about what happened in the 1950s.

Citing a news article, Kadam argued that the number of commercial sex workers had dwindled from over 50,000 to around 1,000-1,200.

"The idea is to depict what was Kamathipura in the 1950s, not to denigrate an area," Kadam submitted.

He further cited changes to other areas around the world, specifically mentioning Soho in London, earlier a red light area which has undergone a sea change over time.

He then cited the absence of challenge to the CBFC certificate, saying that once the certificate was granted, there was a presumption in the makers favour, adding that if anyone had a problem, they should go back to CBFC and ask for the decision to be reviewed.

"I enter a statutory safe harbour once I get a CBFC certificate," he argued, citing example of the movie Satyam Shivam Sundaram, which was termed as lecherous. He told the bench how Justice Krishna Iyer recorded the CBFC's satisfaction to dismiss petitions against that movie.

He also informed the bench that there was already a disclaimer in the movie. Upon the bench's query on the disclaimer's duration, he responded that it was 10 seconds long.

"These petitions deserve to dismissed because based on a trailer and teaser you approach the court. To add something to the disclaimer, you need to see the film. This is speculation at the interlocutory stage. This is last minute," he further argued.

He added that the digital prints were already with third parties and there were several judgements which stated that approaching the court last minute itself should be a ground to dismiss.

"Since one year the teaser is being saying Gangubai Kathiawadi. The title is there since September 2019. Kamathipura everyone know. The petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs as people coming to court for publicity," he closed his arguments with this submission.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the CBFC, submitted that there was no challenge to the CBFC certificate, the trailer was available from February 4, but the petitions had been filed only now, and nothing in the petitions said that a particular rule or guideline was not followed.

The bench, noting that no one complained to the CBFC about the movie and the petitioners had directly approached the court at the last minute, dismissed the petitions.

In a related development, the Supreme Court today suggested to the filmmakers to change the title of the movie, while hearing a petition filed by a man claiming to be the adopted son of Gangubai Kathiawadi.