What Is The Problem If Movie Is Released After One Week: SC Asks As It Suspends Release Of Movie "Hamare Baarah" Until High Court Hears Challenge To Certification

The Supreme Court, today, suspended the screening of the movie "Hamare Baarah" until the final disposal of the pending writ petition by the Bombay High Court. The Petitioner has alleged that the Movie portrays married Muslim women as lacking individual rights, a portrayal based on an alleged misreading of the Quranic verse "Aayat 223."

The Petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Bombay High Court permitting the release of the film after several deletions of controversial dialogues. 

The Vacation Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered, "By the impugned orders dated 6th of June, 2024 and 7th of June, 2024, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court modified the earlier order dated 5th of June, 2024, and further directed for constituting a committee and give a report. On 7th of June when the report came, the High Court has expressed dissatisfaction and further listed the matter on 13th of June...Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter on merits as early as possible. Until disposal of the petition before the High Court, screening of the movie in question shall remain suspended..."

 Advocate Fauzia Shakil appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and submitted, "The movie is scheduled to be released tomorrow...the ad-interim order was vacated by an unreasoned order. Now what the High Court does is...it directs that CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) should form a committee...CBFC is an interested party in this challenge."

"Why don't you argue before the High Court?", Justice Vikram Nath asked.

Advocate Shakil replied, "CBFC being an interested party in the case, could not have been directed to form a committee."

Advocate for the Respondents said, "I have all certifications...I am entitled to release the movie once the certificate is granted..."

Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, "By itself(CBFC), the certification has been found to be dubious because its(committee's) suggestions have been accepted..."

Justice Nath said, "What is the problem if the movie is released after one week? In the meantime, let the High Court decide." 

Advocate for the Respondents submitted, "They have raised (objections) on the basis of the teaser...the allegation was that it affects the religious sentiments. Teaser has been removed from all the media."

Justice Mehta said, "No. They have not been removed...Today morning we have seen the teaser. It is as such, with all those objectionable material. The Teaser is available on YouTube.You are mistaken."

The Advocate for the Respondents submitted that they have no objection against the Teaser being injuncted.

Justice Nath replied, "No no, there is no question of teaser being injuncted. We are simply saying that the screening of the movie shall remain stayed till the High Court finally decides the issue. We can request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously."

Justice Nath further remarked, "The teaser is so offensive that the High Court granted an interim order".

Advocate for the Respondents submitted that they have not referred to which part they found the movie derogatory, to which Justice Sandeep Mehta replied, "A body which has been constituted, which is required to do all its work faithfully. We find that it has failed, on the fact of the record, in view of the admission that they have themselves removed a part of your movie."

The Bombay High Court had issued an interim restraint order against the exhibition, circulation, or public availability of the film "Hamare Baarah” on any public forum or platform. The interim relief came following a writ petition filed by Azhar Basha Tamboli Ltd under Article 226 of the Constitution aiming to revoke the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and prevent the film's release.

The petitioners had argued that the film was in “complete contravention” of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and violated constitutional provisions under Articles 19(2) and 25 of the Constitution. They had claimed that the film, particularly its trailer available on YouTube, portrayed married Muslim women as lacking individual rights, a portrayal based on a misreading of the Quranic verse "Aayat 223." This, they had argued, was derogatory to the Islamic faith and the dignity of married Muslim women in India.

Subsequently, on June 7, 2024, the High Court had allowed the release of the movie after the makers of the film volunteered to delete controversial dialogues. The Court had modified its earlier order that had restrained the release of the film on any public forum or platform, including YouTube.

The Bench was “at pains” with the committee formed by the CBFC requesting an extension to submit its comments, which “frustrated” the intended purpose of providing an uninfluenced opinion on the film. This committee was expected to evaluate the film under Rule 23 sub-clause 11 of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules, 2024. Instead, it had sought an extension for an in-depth analysis, thereby delaying the process.

The trailer of the movie was showcased before the Court highlighting dialogues and visuals which were deemed offensive. The petitioners also referenced various legal provisions, including Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act and Sections 153A, 292, 293 295A and 505 of the IPC to support the claim that the film could hurt the sentiments of the Muslims and may create hatred in the society.

CBFC had defended the certification process. He had stated that the film was certified only after necessary modifications and deletions of objectionable content. He had asserted that the trailers on YouTube and Book My Show were uncertified and that measures would be taken to withdraw them.

Cause Title: Azhar Basha Tamboli v. Ravi S. Gupta and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 13061/ 013062 of 2024)