The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the grant of certification to the film ‘Adipurush'. The PIL was filed alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and distorted sacred texts.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia at the outset remarked "Everybody is now touchy on everything, every time they will come before the Supreme Court for these things." Justice Kaul further asked the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, "Why should we entertain it under Article 32?"

The Court remarked "Level of tolerance for films books and paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt, sometimes genuinely sometimes not, but we will not under Article 32 start encouraging this." Appearing for the Petitioner Mamta Rani, Advocate-on-Record Ratnesh Kumar Shukla submitted that the guidelines regarding the certification of films should be followed by the Union of India. "The government is itself not following its guidelines that is why I am here before your lordship," submitted Shukla.

Responding quickly, Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for the filmmakers said that there are multiple Petitioners before the various High Courts saying the same thing.

The Bench in its detailed order noted: "The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the constitution of India by a practising advocate who seeks revocation of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification in respect of the film Adipurush for hurting religious sentiments and for distorting the sacred texts."

Continuing, the Court noted, "Cinematographic representations may not be the exact replica of the text. There has to be little play in the same. However, the play doesn't go beyond certain limits is why a body has been constituted to look into these aspects. In the present case, the certificate was issued and it is stated that subsequent modifications were also made."

The Court further noted "It would not be appropriate that for each person's sensitivity, this court should interfere, especially in the exercise of Article 32 of the constitution of India. We are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India." Justice Kaul while parting, also observed in the order that "The court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board," and dismissed the PIL.

In the other batch of matters filed by Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, the production house of the film 'Adipurush', the same Bench stayed all proceedings before different High Courts challenging the film.

The Allahabad High Court had on June 28, 2023, while dealing with Public Interest Litigations, seeking removal of the objectionable dialogues and scenes from the Film ‘Adipurush’, directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to constitute an 'Expert Committee' of not less than 5 in numbers to verify as to whether the depiction of the story of the film of Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman and Ravan etc. have been depicted in conformity with the Valmiki Ramayana. The Court also directed the personal appearance of the film director and the dialogue writer along with their personal affidavits explaining their bonafide.

Cause Title: Mamta Rani v. Union Of India And Anr. [W.P.(C) No. 713/2023]

Justice Sanjay Kishan KaulJustice Sudhanshu DhuliaAdipurush

Ramey Krishan Rana