The Supreme Court declined a plea by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh governments to modify its decision to allow film 'Padmaavat' to be screened in theatres.
The State governments approached the apex court to convey the apprehensions that the screening of the movie would trigger large-scale violence by caste groups, beyond the control of the law enforcement apparatus.
But the court stood firm by the right to creative speech and expression, putting the onus squarely on the State governments to take measures to protect the movie, its artistes and the public who come to watch it in the theatres.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Our order is to be complied by one and all. A 100 or 200 people cannot take to the streets and demand the ban of a movie. It is unthinkable. The Supreme Court has passed an order. These people better abide by it," Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, heading a three-judge Bench, put his foot down on the entreaties made by the States for a return to prohibition on the screening.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observes there is "no way the court would back down". "Otherwise, these people will make a virtue of creating trouble. They will first create trouble and then make a virtue of creating trouble," Justice Chandrachud observed.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the States did not want to adopt an "ostrich-like approach" to the violence. "Trouble already exists," Mr. Mehta submitted.
ADVERTISEMENT
When the hearing commenced, Mr. Mehta, for Rajasthan and Madha Pradesh, said the caste groups should be first allowed to have their say in court.
"Why? You have come to the Supreme Court. You start by saying what you want," Chief Justice Misra cut in.
When finally, Khatriya community's counsel had his chance to submit, he termed Padmaavat a "distortuon of history" and an unfair and emotionally draining act on a community which has several of its members guarding the Border.
"There is a disclaimer in the film. It says the movie is not a portrayal of history. You please educate your members about what a disclaimer is," Justice A.M. Khanwilkar replied drily.
Justice Chandachud, at the outset of the hearing pointed to paragraph nine of the States' application. The paragraph said violence continues before and after the January 18 order of the Supreme Court to allow the screening of the movie. The violence is despite the States' duty and obligation to ensure public order.
"What is the meaning of this paragraph? How can we entertain this?" Justice Chandrachud asked Mr. Mehta.
"Paragraph does not exist. Please forget it," Mr. Mehta submitted.
"If this paragraph does not exist, your application does not exist," Justice Chandrachud retorted.
"If we understand your intention. Your prayer is 'please allow us to ban the movie again'. We are not inclined to modify our order," Chief Justice Misra addressed Mr. Mehta.
The States had invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to argue that the law provided the State to finally decide whether exhibition of a movie may trigger public unrest.
Earlier, Gujarat and Rajasthan had issued notifications on January 5 and 17, respectively, prohibiting the screening of the Censor Board-certified film. Haryana had in-principle agreed to a ban on exhibition. Madhya Pradesh had made statements that they intend to ban the screening of the movie in theatres. The movie is scheduled for nationwide release on January 25.
SC stay
On January 18, the Supreme Court stayed attempts by four States to prohibit the screening of the film.
This was done after Viacom 18, the movie's producers, approached it. The court had further restrained all States from passing such prohibitory orders against the exhibition of the film.
The apex court had emphasised that it was "the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order".
The Bench had made it clear that "once the Parliament has conferred the responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board has certified the film, non-exhibition of the film by States is contrary to statutory provisions".
The film is based on the saga of historic battle of 13th century between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.
“There is a disclaimer in the film. It says the movie is not a portrayal of history. You please educate your members about what a disclaimer is,” Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said.
Justice Chandrachud, at the outset of the hearing, pointed to paragraph nine of the States’ application. The paragraph said violence continues before and after the January 18 order of the Supreme Court to allow the screening of the movie. The violence is despite the States’ duty and obligation to ensure public order.
“What is the meaning of this paragraph? How can we entertain this?” Justice Chandrachud asked Mr. Mehta.
“Paragraph does not exist. Please forget it,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
“If this paragraph does not exist, your application does not exist,” Justice Chandrachud retorted.
“If we understand your intention, your prayer is ‘please allow us to ban the movie again.’ We are not inclined to modify our order,” Chief Justice Misra addressed Mr. Mehta.
The States had invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to argue that the law provided the State to finally decide whether exhibition of a movie may trigger public unrest.
Earlier, Gujarat and Rajasthan had issued notifications on January 5 and 17, respectively, prohibiting the screening of the Censor Board-certified film. Haryana had in-principle agreed to a ban on exhibition. Madhya Pradesh had made statements that they intend to ban the screening of the movie, scheduled for nationwide release on January 25.
On January 18, the Supreme Court stayed attempts by four States to prohibit the screening of the film.
This was done after Viacom 18, the producers, approached it. The court had further restrained all States from passing such prohibitory orders against the exhibition of the film.
The apex court had emphasised that it was “the duty and obligation of the State to maintain law and order.”
The Bench said that “once Parliament has conferred the responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board has certified the film, non-exhibition of the film by States is contrary to statutory provisions.”
The film is based on the saga of the 13th century battle between Maharaja Ratan Singh and his army of Mewar and Sultan Alauddin Khilji of Delhi.