IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Ranjit Singh Poohla - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
CWP-25295-2022
Decided On : 09-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. concerns about film's portrayal of sikh beliefs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's legal arguments on portrayal effects. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments regarding film’s fictional basis and certification. (Para 15 , 18) |
| 4. court's dismissal of petition citing lack of evidence. (Para 24 , 25 , 36) |
| 5. petition lacks standing; certification upheld. (Para 28 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - The instant writ petition invokes jurisdiction of this Court for cancellation of the Certificate granted by Central Board of Film Certification granted to the Punjabi Movie titled 'Masand' stated release on 10th of November 2022 on the ground that the same is likely to promote against the values, religious symbols and sentiments of Sikh religion and promote community hatred as the trailer of the movie shows the character of villain to draw similarity with life of a deceased Jathedar Ajit Singh Poohla (Head of Nihang Sect, Tarna Dal), who was murdered by some radical elements and glorifies the murderers to have done the right thing.
2. The averments as contained in the petition shows that the petitioner, who is present Jathedar/Head of Nihang Singh Jathebandi Group namely Tarna Dal Misl Shaheed Bhai Taru Singh Poohla and is a practising Nihang following all the customs and rituals of a life of Nihang Sikh. It is averred that there are various groups of Nihangs living in Punjab and all across the country with their distinct identity customs and rituals. The aforesaid Nihang groups have always promoted peace and harmony in society and abide by the laws of the country.
3. The petitioner claims to have watched the trailer of the aforesaid movie titled 'Masand' on a YouTube channel. The movie is promoted by its producer Living Dreams Entertainment and G.K. Digital. The portrayal of villain of the movie draws resemblance from Ajit Singh Poohla, the former Jathedar of Tarna Dal. It is pointed out that Chief of Nihang Jathebandi wear a Turban in a specific style giving a distinct identity showing the ranking of the Jathedar. He is shown in the movie wearing a Pharla (Turban) in the manner worn by Tarna Dal which is strikingly similar to the Pharla worn by Leader of their Nihang Singh Jathebandi and such portrayal is to the detriment of the tenets of Sikhism. It is further contended that misleading depiction of real life character of Baba Ajit Singh Poohla has been undertaken in the movie for vilification of their head, which is defamatory in context and that it seems to justify and glorify an act of murder. Additionally, it is pointed out that the poster of the movie itself claims to be inspired by true events and uses the claim 'Sadde Qatal Nhi Sodhna Kehande Ne' (i.e. we don't call it a murder but a correction).
4. It has been claimed that the feelings of the Nihang Singhs and people of Punjab in generally would be greatly hurt in the event the Nihang Sikhs are depicted in a negative manner and the same is likely to reduce the status, respect and image of the Nihang Singhs, notwithstanding the sacrifices made by them.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and accepts notice.
7. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5 to 7 and accept notice.
8. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents No.8 to 14 and accept notice.
9. The counsel for the respondents contend that going by the averments contained in the petition and the fact that only a legal question arises for consideration, there is no necessity for filing of any separate responses and that they are ready for arguments on the basis of averments raised herein. Hence, the arguments were heard without any formal written responses.
10. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Nihang Singhs are integral to Sikh religion and any negative portrayal of a Nihang Jathedar would be insinuating the practisin
Viocom 18 Media Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India and other reported as (2018) 1 SCC 761
The importance of exhausting statutory remedies and the powers of the Central Government under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to suspend the exhibition of any film.
Artistic expression in film must be balanced with state interests in censorship, ensuring compliance with statutory guidelines without undermining fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)....
The judgment emphasizes the creative freedom of filmmakers in addressing social issues and the responsibility to depict the overall message of the film in determining its permissibility. It also high....
Point of Law : Once film is granted certificate by competent statutory authority, i.e. Board, producer or distributor of the film has every right to exhibit film in a hall unless, of course, said cer....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.