Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks a restraint on the exhibition of the Hindi feature film / movie titled ‘PK’, whether it be in movie theaters or on the television, on the ground of the same hurting the religious sentiments of all the communities and mainly of Hindus and thereby violating the rights of Hindus under Articles 19(2) and 25 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the case of the petitioner:

(i) that certain sequences of the said feature film show many Hindu Gods and Goddesses in wrong perspective;

(ii) that after the release of the said feature film, due to large scale protests and demonstrations seeking ban on the film, the law and order situation has been affected;

(iii) that the said film makes a mockery of Hindu religion and ways of worship of Hindus;

(iv) that the movie defames and maligns the Hindu culture and religious practices and makes a satire on Hindu Gods and Saints and all of which hurts the religious sentiments of the Hindus;

(v) that the central character of the feature film played by the actor Aamir Khan, is of an alien stranded on earth who has lost his spaceship’s remote control device and which he subsequently finds to be in possession of a self-styled ‘Tapasvi Maharaj’ played by actor Saurabh Shukla and who has started fooling people on the pretext of having found the same in Himalayas;

(vi) that the movie then shows the central character along with female lead in the film played by actress Anushka Sharma confront the said Godman ‘Tapasvi Maharaj’ and with the assistance of a television channel show the people the true colours of the said self-styled Godman;

(vii) that the central character of the film during his search for his remote control device is shown questioning various Hindu religious practices of offering donations at temples, idol worship, thereby mocking the century-old customs and sacred beliefs of Hindus;

(viii) that the central character of the film is also shown sticking the pictures of Lord Hanuman and Lord Krishna on his face, in order to protect himself from slaps;

(ix) that the film also shows Hindu Gods as ‘laapata’ (untraceable);

(x) that in one sequence of the film, the central character makes the statement, of “God not working either for the reason of his battery having expired or on account of manufacturing defect”;

(xi) that the film also makes a satire of the Hindu practice of offering milk to Lord Shiva;

(xii) that the film also makes fun of the Hindu practice of idol worship, ‘shastang dandvat’ and calls them ‘andhvish was’;

(xiii) that the Film Censor Board should not have granted ‘U/A’ certificate to the said film as the theme of the film offends Hindu sentiments, religious practice and their faith and ways of worship and the right to propagate, profess and practice religion enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India; the film is thus also violative of Guidelines 2(xii) and 2(xiii) of Film Certification Guidelines formulated by the Central Government;

(xiv) that one of the members of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Panel which has given the ‘U/A’ certificate to the said film has a history of being biased towards certain filmmakers and the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India has suggested disciplinary action against her; thus the certification granted to the film is not unbiased;

(xv) that another member of the Advisory Panel of the CBFC has also taken a stand that the certification accorded to the movie is not completely unbiased and that the possibility of the film hurting the religious feelings and sentiments of certain sections of the society cannot be ruled out; and,

(xvi) reliance is placed on S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574 laying down the standards to be applied for judging the film.

3. Learned ASG, appearing on advance notice, at the outset states that the petition is not mainta