Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation against the movie ‘Adipurush’ the division bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh, JJ. has granted the Deputy Solicitor General of India (‘DSGI’) 24 hours’ time to seek complete instructions. Further, it said that while producing complete instructions, he shall also apprise the Court as to whether Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (‘Ministry’) is considering taking appropriate steps in the interest of public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The petitioner showed objectionable portion from the coloured photographs of the film. Further, she submitted that not only some dialogues of the film but the picturisation of Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman, Ravan and wife of Vibhishana etc. have not been depicted in terms of the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition issued under Subsection 2 of Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (“the Act, 1952”).
Thus, the petitioner requested that the aforesaid movie may immediately be banned since the it may not only affect the sentiments of the people at large, who worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman etc., but the way the character of Ramayana has been depicted would create serious disharmony in the society also. The petitioner further stated that she failed to understand from where the content of the film has been borrowed as nothing in that manner has been narrated in Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsikrit Ramcharit Manas.
DSGI has submitted that if scenes of the film and dialogues thereof are from the film, can be verified after seeking instructions from the competent authority. Further, Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 states that in such circumstances, the revisional power vests with the Central Government. He has also stated that the Board of Films certification may not revisit the certificate already issued to the film. Further, before starting of the film, the disclaimer has been shown to the effect that the film is not the ‘Ramayana’.
Having regard to the fact that the DSGI has not received complete instructions from the Union of India, more particularly, from the Ministry and Board of Film Certification, the Court granted him 24 hours’ time to seek complete instructions. Further, it said that while producing complete instructions, he shall also apprise the Court as to whether the Ministry is considering taking appropriate steps in the interest of public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The matter will next be taken up today.
[Kuldeep Tiwari v UOI, 2023 SCC OnLine All 335, Order dated 27-06-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner:- Advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate Sudha Sharma;
Counsel for Respondent:- Deputy Solicitor General of India S.B. Pandey, Advocate Ashwani Kumar Singh.
