Adipurush: Allahabad High Court asks if Union government will take steps in public interest under Cinematograph Act

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday sought the Union government's response on whether it is likely to take any steps to protect public interest with respect to the exhibition of the movie, Adipurush, by utilizing its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. [Kuldeep Tiwari & Anr v Union & Ors].This provision confers various powers on the Central government, including powers to change or restrict the exhibition category of films or even to suspend the screening of films. "While producing complete instructions, he (Central government's counsel) shall also apprise the Court as to whether opposite party no.1 (Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) is considering to take appropriate steps in the interest of public at large by invoking its revisional power under Section 6 of the Act, 1952," the Court's June 27 order stated. .A bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh has posted the matter for further hearing on June 28 (today), after directing the Deputy Solicitor General to obtain complete instructions from the Central Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification..The Court has also allowed an application requesting the inclusion of Manoj Muntashir Shukla, the dialogue writer of the movie in question, as a party in the case and issued notice to him..The order was passed after Deputy Solicitor General of India, Senior Advocate SB Pandey requested time to verify facts and seek instructions from the appropriate authority. He also noted that the Central government has revisional powers which could be exercised in these circumstances.He added that the CBFC may not revisit the certificate already issued, particularly since a disclaimer has been shown in the film that it is not the Ramayana.The Court, however, questioned whether such a disclaimer was sufficient to claim that the film is not on the Ramayana."When the filmmaker has shown Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravan, Lanka etc., then as to how the disclaimer of the film would convince the people at large that the story is not from Ramayana?" the Court asked..During the hearing, advocate Ranjana Agnihotri, representing one of the petitioners, drew the Court's attention to objectionable, colored photographs that were sourced from the film, Adipurush.She contended that certain dialogues in the film, as well as the portrayal of Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman, Ravan, and Vibhishana's wife, among others, had deviated from the guidelines set forth for such depictions. In this regard, she referred to the guidelines for the certification of films for public exhibition, as outlined in Section 5-B (2)of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.The petitioners have called for an immediate ban on the movie, as it not only negatively impacts the sentiments of those who worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman, and others, but also has the potential to cause significant social disharmony due to the manner in which the characters of the Ramayana have been portrayed..The Court was hearing a plea filed by social activists Kuldeep Tiwari and Bandana Kumar, who were represented by advocates Ranjana Agnihotri and Sudha Sharma.The petitioners asserted that the movie in question cast doubt on the integrity of the revered epic Ramayana and defamed the cultural heritage of Ayodhya as well as the Hindu religion.The movie's trailer was clumsy and indecent, which has resulted in hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus, the plea stated. The petitioner's further noted that despite the Allahabad High Court issuing a notice to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) during a hearing held in January 2023, the board has not yet responded in the matter.Recently, an amendment application was filed to include the film's dialogue writer, Manoj Muntashir Shukla, as a party in the case. The amendment application also objected to the dialogues written by Shukla, terming them to be ridiculous, 'filthy', and 'against the glory of Ramayan yug'..The matter is slated to be heard again this afternoon..[Read Order]