Two-judge bench dismissed PIL seeking revocation of the CBFC certificate of Adipurush movie

Today, the Supreme Court of India stayed all High Court proceedings against the makers of the controversial movie ‘Adipurush’ granting them interim relief against the order of Allahabad High Court to appear before the Court. The High Court ordered the personal presence of the movie Producer (Bhushan Kumar), Dialogue Writer (Manoj Muntashir Shukla), and Director (Om Raut) for explanation. Also, the two-judge bench including Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SK Kaul dismissed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) seeking the revocation of the certificate granted to Adipurush Movie by the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certificate). The PIL was filed by Advocate Mamta Rani, who argued before the SC bench that the movie portrayed Hindu Deities in a way that violated the provisions under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 

During the court proceedings, Justice Kaul expressed concern regarding the increase in the trend of bringing every minor case to the Supreme Court as well as questioned the petitioner’s approach under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Kaul orally remarked that “Why should we entertain this under 32? The Cinematography act provides for the method to get certificate. Everybody now is touchy about everything. Every time they will come before the Supreme Court for it. Is everything to be scrutinized by us? The level of tolerance for films, books, and paintings keeps on getting down. Now people are hurt maybe sometimes genuinely, maybe sometimes not. But we will not under Article 32 start entertaining them.” While arguing, the petitioner said that the CBFC did not follow the guidelines before granting the certificate. 

In this context, Justice Kaul said, “We may say this at the inception itself that Cinematographic representations may not be the exact replica of text. There has to be a certain play. However, so that the play does not go beyond a certain limit, a body has been constituted to look into these aspects. In the present case, the certificate was issued by that body and there have been certain modifications made after that too.” While stating that it is inappropriate to address one's sensitivity under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the bench ordered, “It is not appropriate that for each person’s sensitivities, this court should interfere, especially in exercise of Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India nor these matters should be generally entertained by courts as the certificate of the censor board is granted. The court should not become some kind of an appellate authority for the censor board.”