Delhi High Court declines to stay release of Jolly LLB Reserves order on Writ Petition filed by two lawyers

The Delhi High Court yesterday refused to stay the release of the upcoming film ‘Jolly LLB’ on a plea alleging that the contents of the trailer are defamatory to lawyers from Meerut University, and also amounts to contempt of court..The Delhi High Court yesterday refused to stay the release of the upcoming film ‘Jolly LLB’ on a plea alleging that the contents of the trailer are defamatory to lawyers from Meerut University, and also amounts to contempt of court..However, the Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice V.K. Jain reserved its order in the writ petition (Shilpesh Chaudhary & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (c ) 1492/2013) filed by Advocates Shilpesh Chaudhary and Neeraj Kant Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution..The petitioners, lawyers from Rohini court in Delhi, had submitted that the contents of the trailer of the movie were in violation of the guidelines framed by the Union of India (Respondent no. 1) under Section 5B of the Cinematography Act, 1952. The petitioners further submitted that as per the said guidelines “visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individual or contempt of court are not to be presented.” However, the movie allegedly carried contents which were defamatory to lawyers who had graduated from Meerut University and also undermined the dignity of the court..The petitioners also stated that the film contained scenes where lawyers used abusive language in the Court proceedings thereby lowering the dignity of the court..Counsels for the petitioners, Jaideep Mallik, and Birender Sangwan alleged that “the film contains scenes showing disgraceful act in the court proceedings… thus the certification granted to the said film is liable to be withdrawn or quashed”..The petitioners prayed for cancellation of the certificate allowing public exhibition of the movie..As per this report, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who represented the producer, Respondent No.3 (M/s Fox Star Studio India), submitted that the scenes in the movie were “creative expression of the film maker and depiction of the day-to -day happenings”. .The Court refused to grant any interim relief and reserved its order.