[Gangubai Kathiawadi] Bombay High Court dismisses pleas against portrayal of entire area as red-light hub

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed two petitions seeking to remove references to the area in which the film Gangubai Kathiawadi, starring Alia Bhatt, is set [Shraddha Amol Surve and ors v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik dismissed the petitions after a lengthy hearing of over four hours. The Court observed that petitioners had not resorted to pursuing alternative remedies before approaching the Court. Objection was raised to the fact that the certificate was not challenged."Once the film is granted certificate by the competent statutory authority, i.e., the Board, the producer or distributor of the film has every right to exhibit the film in a hall unless, of course, the said certificate is modified or nullified by a superior authority or Court. Any move of any body, group, association or individual to assume the position of the certificate granting authority has to be discouraged and nipped in the bud." the Bench held..One of the pleas said that the reputation of the area has been lowered after the film’s trailer was released, since the movie makes wild, derogatory allegations by portraying the entire area as a red-light hub.The petitioners included Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Amin Patel, who objected to the names “Kamathipura” and “Kathiawadi” being used in the film in a manner that may lead to lowering dignity of the women in the area.It was pointed out that the social impact of the film may spread a belief that the area is only known for prostitution, and all girls in the area are prostitutes to be teased and taunted, violating their fundamental right to living with dignity..“Let a film be released in grace, so everyone can enjoy and not disgrace,” Advocate Dhruti Kapadia argued for the MLA.Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, appearing for production houses Bhansali Productions and Pen India Limited, sought for dismissal of the PILs on the ground that there was a “misplaced sense of outrage”.Kadam asked the Court to consider two submissions:- That the film had to be viewed as a whole and a conclusion was not to be reached based on the trailer, which the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already done.- That the period which is sought to be depicted in the film has to be considered.Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, appearing for the CBFC, added that there were statutory provisions by virtue of which the certificate can be challenged in the event there is some confusion..The 20-page order stated that instead of approaching this Court seeking discretionary remedy, which may be refused if an efficacious alternate remedy is available but is not pursued, the petitioners ought to have pursued the remedy that Rule 32 (of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules) granted to them."There is no pleading at all as to why the statutory remedy is not efficacious. The rule of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative remedy applies also in a public interest litigation as it does in respect of a litigation initiated in private interest." the order stated..A third plea, a writ petition, challenged the representation of the North-Eastern community in a particular scene in the film. The petitioner Hiten Mehta clarified that while he did not wish to delay or stay the release of the film, he was trying to eliminate the alleged discrimination against the people from North Eastern states.Kadam clarified that the scene was between a Chinese doctor and the lead actress. He stated that the joke included the word ‘China’ only because the doctor in the scene was Chinese, and hence there was no attempt to misrepresent a North eastern person as Chinese.The Bench stated that with this clarification, the petition stood resolved. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of..Kadam appeared for Bhansali Productions with a team from DSK Legal comprising Managing Partner Anand Desai, Partners Chandrima Mitra and Parag Khandhar and Principal Associate Prachi Garg.He also represented Pen Films, which was represented by a team from Naik Naik & Company that included Partners Ameet Naik and Madhu Gadodia.The ASG was assisted by Advocates Advait Sethna, Aditya Thakker and Ruju Thakker..Meanwhile, the Supreme Court today suggested to the makers of the film to change its title in view of the several petitions filed seeking a stay on its release..[BREAKING] Gangubai Kathiawadi: "Is it possible to change title:" Supreme Court asks.[Read order]