The Supreme Court will hear on July 21, a petition filed by the makers of movie ‘Adipurush,’ challenging the June 30 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which sought personal appearance of the Director, Producer and dialogue writer of the movie, in connection with the pleas seeking ban on its screening.
Makers of the film approached Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Friday, stating that they were challenging the six petitions, which have been filed against the movie across the country.
They further said that they were also challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict, which summoned Adipurush Director Om Raut, Producer Bhushan Kumar and Dialogue writer Manoj Muntashir Shukla to appear before it on July 27.
The CJI said that the Apex Court would hear the matter on July 21.
Earlier, the petitioners had approached the CJI on Wednesday, when he was about to start a Constitution Bench hearing.
Earlier on June 28, the High Court of Allahabad had slammed the makers of movie Adipurush for portraying Hindu Gods such as Lord Ram, Lakshman, Hanuman and Goddess Sita in a poor light.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh had observed that the the sentiments of people must have been hurt by the way the movie portrayed the religious characters being worshipped for centuries.
It further noted that in recent times, it had come across several movies wherein the Hindu god and goddess were shown in a funny way.
Expressing concern over the number of such incidents increasing day-by-day, the High Court mentioned a movie, wherein Lord Shankar was shown running with his Trishul in a very funny manner.
The High Court further asked whether such things should be showcased against Hindu Gods and Goddesses.
Earlier on June 27, the Bench had questioned as to why the tolerance level of a particular religion (referring to Hindus) was being put to the test.
Slamming the makers of Adipurush for portraying religious characters including Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman in an objectionable manner, the Bench had orally asked whether it was correct to suppress the one who was gentle?
Noting that some people went to the cinema halls where the movie was being exhibited and forced the cinema hall owners to close the hall, the Bench said it should be thankful that the believers of a particular religion do not create any public order problem. Those who forced closure of the cinema halls could have done something else also, it added.
The High Court further noted that CBFC should have done something while granting certificate in the matter.
It remarked that if people would close their eyes on this issue also, just because it was said that people of this particular religion were very tolerant, would it mean that their tolerance should be put to test?
These significant observations were made by the Court while dealing with 2 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas filed against the exhibition and dialogues of the Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon starrer movie.
Noting that religious scriptures, towards which people were sensitive, should not be touched or encroached upon, the Bench stressed that the petitions before it were not at all ‘propaganda petitions’ and that they were concerned with a genuine issue.
They said the issue here (in the PILs) was the way in which the movie has been made. There were some scriptures which were exemplary and worthy of worship. People recite Ramcharitmanas before leaving their homes, noted the Bench.
During the course of hearing, the High Court expressed displeasure over the portrayal of characters of great Hindu epic Ramayana, such as Lord Ram, Lord Hanuman, Lord Lakshman and Sita Mata in the movie, as if they were nothing.
Regarding the argument of the respondents that a disclaimer had been added in the film, the Bench asked whether the people who put the disclaimer considered the countrymen, especially the youth, to be brainless?
It said when the movie makers were showing Lord Ram, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravana and Lanka in their film, they could not say that it was not based on Ramayana.
The Court questioned the Deputy Solicitor General of India as to how would he defend the movie when it contained prima facie objectionable scenes and dialogues. The Court, however, asked him to seek instructions in the matter from the competent authority.
Further, when the Dy SGI informed the bench that certain objectionable dialogues of the movie have been changed, the bench responded that it would not work alone.
It observed that in case the exhibition of the movie was stopped, then the people whose feelings have been hurt, would get relief.