The Supreme Court Thursday said “it is the right of the society to watch or not watch” a movie and that it will only lead to complications if every creative work is sought to be connected or identified with someone or something.
Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench which took up pleas for and against allowing release of the film, Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, said that what happens in society becomes a theme for the film industry, fiction writers, artists, etc.
The two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, told the counsel for petitioners opposing the film’s release, “Your right can also be safeguarded by permitting people to watch a movie of their choice. You have a right to challenge a revisional decision.”
The court’s reference was to the July 21 order by a Centre-appointed committee, given after reviewing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the film.
Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, gives the Centre revision powers over the decisions of the CBFC.
The committee was set up following a direction by the Delhi High Court. Hearing a plea by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, the high court had stayed the release of the film till the Centre took a call. The Supreme Court is also seized of a petition by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, on which the film is based.
The committee report recommended that the filmmakers “replace the existing disclaimer with the provided recommended disclaimer” and include a voice-over for the disclaimer; remove the frames in the credits that thank various individuals; replace all instances of the name “Nutan Sharma”, including on the poster, with a new name, besides directing the removal of some dialogues.
Story continues below this ad
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the report. He said the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution “has to be religion neutral and cannot be selective”.
Agreeing with Mehta that it should not be selective, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, said that it is “not so” in this case.
He questioned the composition of the committee but Justice Kant said they must have been duly nominated and added that their appointment by itself is not under challenge.
Justice Bagchi said, “Government can always have an advisory panel; they are seeing an artistic work.”
Story continues below this ad
Sibal urged the court to watch the film. He added that there is a judgment by former chief justice Sanjiv Khanna that free speech cannot be hate speech.
Sibal said, “Everything in this movie spews venom about a community. There is nothing else in the movie.”
Appearing for the accused Javed, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said allowing the film’s release would jeopardise his right to a fair trial.
But Justice Kant said, “Do not underestimate our judicial officers. People sometimes get unnecessarily hyper and apprehensive that the judicial officer or judges are influenced by these things. We will not be able to hold the court single day, if we are affected by these blackmailers… making sarcastic comments only because they are heavily bribed (for making the comments)… it is part of the judicial training of our officers… a judicial officer is duty bound that he or she has to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence and material on record.”
Story continues below this ad
He further said, “See the predicament of the judges. If they acquit someone, some part of the society will make allegations; if they convict, the other part will. The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense… Most of us don’t read newspapers in the morning. We don’t care about it. Why should we?”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for the filmmakers, said all the recommended changes have been made and the movie must now be allowed to be released.
“The movie in totality will not even have the real portrayal as wanted by the Director, but we are still okay with it…” he said, adding, “I am a law-abiding citizen. I have waited for 10 days. My investment is at stake.”
The court said it will hear the case again on Friday, when it will decide whether it should ask those objecting to go back to the high court and seek relief there.
