PIL to ban Adipurush: "Is it public interest or publicity interest litigation?" Calcutta High Court asks petitioner

The hearing in a plea before the Calcutta High Court to ban the controversial film, Adipurush took an interesting turn on Monday when the Court observed that the notice of the hearing had not been served on the filmmakers, contrary to the petitioner's claims. [Debdip Mandal vs State of West Bengal].The matter was taken up by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya yesterday when the petitioner's counsel claimed that notice had been served on all the parties on the opposite side (respondents)..However, after examining the documents on record, the bench noted that the affidavit of service was wrong as some respondents in the case had not been served. ."Mr. counsel, you should be fair with the bench. Otherwise, it will shake the confidence of the Bench on the Bar members. We trust you and go by your word. You cannot lie like this. Is this a public interest litigation or a publicity interest litigation? Please understand, we are not some clerks sitting here to check your documents," the bench remarked..The incident also led the Court to assert that it will halt the practice of allowing lawyers to file an affidavit of service in Court, instead of first filing it with the concerned department for verification. The Court proceeded to order:"This Court has been accepting affidavits of service filed by learned advocates in the Court with the fond belief that the averments set out in the affidavit are true and correct. On account of what has happened today, there will be a direction that the court officers shall not accept any affidavit of service filed in Court and the learned advocates of the parties are required to file the affidavit of service the in department which shall be verified and then placed before the Court."."Go and convey this to all the members in the Bar association, that 'because of my representation, this order has been passed'," the Court orally added, addressing the petitioner's counsel..The Court also criticised the petitioner for appearing to have done little research in his case. The Court questioned if the petitioner and his counsel had watched the film and whether the petition had details about which parts of the movie were objectionable. ."What is this? Being an advocate you ought to do your research even before filing the petition. Do not use this court to conduct a roving inquiry," Chief Justice Sivagnanam told the advocate. .Among other submissions, the advocate highlighted the petitioner's objection to how the private parts of lady characters, including Goddess Sita and Vibhishana's wife, were focused on by the camera. "We worship the goddess but the camera in this film focuses on her private parts. Even the way they have portrayed Hanuman or for that fact even Ravan. We have seen Ramayana in our childhood days. That Ramayana, written by Saint Valmiki, portrayed everyone with respect but here see the language, the costumes, the scenes, etc. The film has hurt the sentiments of Hindus," the petitioner's counsel submitted. The bench, in turn, noted that similar matters are also pending before the Allahabad High Court and even before the Rajasthan High Court. It, however, agreed to hear the public interest litigation (PIL) petition and adjourned the matter to be listed after the service of notice is complete.