Choice Of Society To Watch Or Not Watch A Movie: Supreme Court On Challenge To Release Of Film 'Udaipur Files'

The Supreme Court today adjourned the batch of cases pertaining to the film 'Udaipur Files' to tomorrow to consider whether the challenge to the order of the Central Government should be relegated to the Delhi High Court.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter to tomorrow and observed that it will most likely remit the matter back to the Delhi High Court to consider the prayer of the Petitioners opposing the film for interim relief against the order of the Central Government allowing release of the film with six more cuts.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant remarked, "It is the right of the society to watch or not watch a movie. Somebody can say I dont want to watch this kind of movie, it is his liberty not to watch that. Somebody is very keen to watch this kind of movie, they also have a right".

He told the Senior Counsel for the accused who objected to the release, "As regards your right, that can be adequately safeguarded, while permitting them (public) to watch any movie of their choice".

At the outset, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for the Producers of the movie, read the order of the Central Government in the revision.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, submitted that after the Centre's order, nothing remains in the matter as the same has to be now challenged by some party.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of the Petitioners before the High Court, submitted that the members of the CBFC were part of the team of the Central Government that reconsidered the certification, which they could not have been. "Central Government hearing revision, why should they nominate members of the CBFC?", Sibal asked.

Justice Surya Kant responded to an argument of Sibal that the members of the CBFC who were part of the panel are office bearers of the BJP, by saying that their appointments are not under challenge.

Sibal told the Court that his client learned about the composition of the revision panel of the Central Government when they appeared before it, and they had no option of walking out of the hearing.

Justice Bagchi remarked, "Government can always have an advisory panel; they are seeing an artistic work".

"Just see the film; if it is fine, I will have no arguments", Sibal urged the Court to watch the movie. "Now there is a judgment of Justice Khanna which deals with this issue, free speech cannot be hate speech", he submitted.

"Everything about this movie spews venom against the minority community", Sibal told the Court.

Tushar Mehta then read the findings of the revision panel of the Centre and its recommendations, and submitted, "Article 19(1)(a) has to be religion neutral and not selective. I am defending my order".

"There are films and web series on real-life incidents", the SG submitted.

Justice Surya Kant told Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was appearing for the accused in the murder case alleging violation of free trial, "Don't underestimate the judiciary", and added that the judiciary is not influenced by such things.

Surya Kant added, "Judicial officer is duty bound and he or she has to decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence on record".

"Look at the predicament of the judges, if they acquit someone, some part of the society will make allegations; if they convict, the other part will. The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense.... Most of us dont read newspapers in the morning. We dont care about it. Why should we?", Justice Surya Kant remarked.

Justice Surya Kant said that filmmakers are inspired by what happens in society, whether good or bad and that the same can't be stalled. "If everything is stalled, only because somebody is apprehending and he is directly or indirectly identifying with that (character) or connected to that, it will create a lot of complications", Justice Surya Kant said.

Guruswamy argued that Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act does not vest the Central Government with the power to order the removal of portions of the film.

"Power of certification means that you can say that this film will become worthy of certification if you do like this....", Justice Surya Kant said, disagreeing with the argument. Justice Surya Kant said that power of certification has inbult power to order changes to the film for the purpose of certification.

Senior Advocate Bhatia submitted, "The revisional authority has passed an order; the natural sequitur will be to release the movie". "Their objections have been taken care of by the revisional authority", he added.

"Javed (the accused who has approached the Court) is not even a person mentioned in the movie. Not a single mention. He is accused number nine", he added. Bhatia then relied upon Judgments of the Apex Court.

"The movie in totality will not even have the real portrayal as wanted by the Director, but we are still okay with it", Bhatia said, referring to the cuts ordered by the CBFC and thereafter by the Central Government.

"I am a law-abiding citizen. I have waited for ten days. My investment is at stake", he submitted.

"How many days will you take to carry out the modifications required by the Government?", the Court asked Bhatia. Bhatia responded by saying that the same has already been done.

Justice Surya Kant told Sibal, "His SLP is infructuous. You have a right to amend your Writ Petition. Why dont you ask for interim relief before the High Court?.. We will take the matters tomorrow."