Clearing the decks for release of the film ‘31st October’, based on the aftermath of the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, including the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Delhi High Court on Thursday said there was nothing objectionable in it.
A Bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal dismissed a plea opposing the film’s release, scheduled on October 21, saying the petition was “devoid of merit” and the allegations in the petition were “vague and unsubstantiated”.
Indira Gandhi was assassinated on October 31, 1984.
The Bench was of the view that video trailer and posters of the film were “not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the contents of the film are objectionable as sought to be contended” in the plea.
The court also said that since the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has certified the movie, starring Soha Ali Khan and Vir Das in the lead, for public exhibition, “no interference is warranted”.
“It is relevant to note that the entire writ petition is based on a video trailer stated to have been made available on YouTube. So far as the posters of the movie placed on record are concerned, we are of the view that the same is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the contents of the film are objectionable as sought to be contended by the petitioner,” the court has said in its order.
It has also said that “at any rate, since the movie has been certified by CBFC/statutory authority in accordance with the guidelines made under the Cinematograph Act 1952, for certification of films for public exhibition, no interference is warranted by this court on the basis of the vague and unsubstantiated allegations in the writ petition”.
The PIL, filed by Ajay Katara, had opposed the release of the film claiming that it is against the ideology of the “oldest political party of the country”.
The petition stated that a 55-second video clipping of the film had been released online and it showed an actor, having close resemblance to an existing political figure, inciting violence. Mr. Katara had not named the political figure in his plea.
The plea had claimed that the movie contains various scenes “aimed and targeted against a political figure of the country”.
The PIL had claimed that the film’s producer, Magical Dreams Production Pvt Ltd, has used a look-alike of the unnamed political figure who has been “painted in a bad light”. — PTI
