The Supreme Court today (July 21) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, seeking revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification to Adipurush. A bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that it was inappropriate for the SC to interfere with film certifications based on the “sensitivities of each individual”.
The PIL was filed by advocate Mamta Rani who argued that the film’s portrayal of the Hindu deities violated the statutory provisions outlined in section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It was argued that the Gods were depicted in a detestable manner in the film.
Justice S.K. Kaul questioned the petitioner’s choice to approach the court under Article 32 of the Constitution. He expressed concerns about the increasing trend of people bringing every minor issue to the Supreme Court, asking if the court should be scrutinising every aspect of films, books and art works. He stressed the need for a certain level of tolerance towards creative representations. Justice Kaul said, “Everybody now is touchy about everything. Is everything to be scrutinised by us? The level of tolerance for films, books, paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt maybe sometimes genuinely, maybe sometimes not. But we will not under Article 32 start entertaining them.”
The petitioner contended that the CBFC had not adhered to the required guidelines before granting the censor certificate. But the apex court refused to entertain the PIL. Justice Kaul said in his order that cinematographic representations may not be an exact replica of religious texts, and that artistic freedom must be balanced with limits. To maintain this balance, the CBFC was constituted as a regulatory body, he added.
The order said, “It is not appropriate that for each person’s sensitivities, this court should interfere, especially in exercise of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India nor these matters should be generally entertained by courts as the certificate of the Censor Board is granted. The court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the Censor Board.”
In a separate matter, the apex court also stayed the proceedings in various high courts against Adipurush while issuing notice on a transfer petition and a Special Leave Petition filed by the producers of the film.
The petitioner in the present case had taken serious objection to Adipurush, claiming that misleading statements had been made in it. Besides, the petition added, the depiction of the physical features and communication styles of Hindu Gods Ram and Hanuman were complete distortions of not only the characters but also the very fundamental values for which they are worshipped. The petitioner claimed that such depiction would influence the general public into believing in “different value and morals”. The petitioner further alleged that the depiction of Sita was “inappropriate and vulgar”.