When Request For Requisite Certification Is Pending Consideration By CBFC, It Is Premature To Examine Objections: Delhi HC On Petition Against Movie Based On 2020 Delhi Riots
The Petitions before the Delhi High Court raised a common grievance that a Movie titled “2020 Delhi” through its trailer depicts a highly prejudicial account of the riots that took place in North-East Delhi in 2020.

The Delhi High Court disposed of a Petition which raised objections against a movie based on the 2020 Delhi riots with the observation that when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the Central Board of Film Certification, it will be premature for the Court to examine the objections of the petitioners.
The Petitions before the High Court raised a common grievance that a Movie titled “2020 Delhi” of which a ‘trailer’ is accessible on social media, depicts a highly prejudicial and distorted account of the riots that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020, and thereby create a false and disruptive narrative having serious repercussions.
The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta stated, “In any event, since the trailer of the Movie would be prefaced by a suitable undertaking (in terms of the statement made on behalf of the producer/s), the same dispels any notion/apprehension that the movie/ trailer portrays any actual event/event(s).”
Advocate Mehmood Pracha represented the Petitioners while ASC Chetan Sharma represented the Respondents.
Arguments
It was the case of the Petitioners that the Movie will severely prejudice the ongoing trial in respect of the events/ incidents that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020. It was further submitted that the trailer itself suggests that the narrative of the movie is such that the petitioner has been portrayed in a negative light, and virtually condemned even before the conclusion of the trial.
The petitioners assumed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already granted the requisite certificate for the Movie's release and public screening. The petitioners prayed for setting aside the certification by the CBFC and also sought that the producers of the movie be enjoined from publicly releasing the Movie until the criminal cases involving the petitioners are disposed of.
The Senior Counsel for the producers of the Movie in question categorically stated that the CBFC certification for the public screening of the Movie in question, is yet to be obtained unless and until the requisite certification is obtained from the Board, the producers shall necessarily refrain from public screening of the Movie, including in theatres. Pending certification of the Movie, the producers would not release the same through any social media platform. It was further submitted that the Movie does not purport to represent/ portray a recreation of the events that transpired in February 2020, and a disclaimer to this effect would be exhibited.
Reasoning
On the basis of submissions made from the side of the Producers, the Bench said, “In view of the aforesaid statement, a substantial part of the controversy sought to be raised by the petitioners has become moot.” It further held, “Thus, at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie.”
On the objection that the trailer of the Movie by itself seeks to project a detrimental and distorted version of events, the Bench noted that the producers of the Movie have stated that an appropriate disclaimer shall be exhibited/ displayed at the beginning of the Movie's official trailer. The producers of the Movie also agreed upon the format/contents of the disclaimer and it had been stated that the same would be in line with the disclaimer approved by the Bombay High Court in Lt. Col. Prasad Shirkant Purohit Mumbai vs. National Investigating Agency, Mumbai, (2024).
Coming to the grievance that the trailer of the Movie is being used to influence voters and/ or create a political narrative, the Bench clarified that it would be apposite for the Election Commission of India to examine the complaint of the said petitioner, and if warranted, take suitable measures as per the applicable rules and guidelines. The Bench thus disposed of the Petition and said, “This Court takes note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Election Commission that they are in the process of examining the complaint.”
Cause Title: Sahil Parvez & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:613)
Appearance
Petitioners: Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Kshitij Singh, Mohd. Hasn, Nujhat Naseem, Heema,Warisha Farasat, Ahmad Ibrahim, Talib Mustafa, Ayesha Zaidi, Mreganka Kukreja, Dr. Amit George, Praful Bhardwaj Rupam Jha, Abhishek Budhiraja
Respondents: ASC Chetan Sharma, CGSC Nidhi Raman, Sr. Adv Jayant Mehta, Advocates Amit Gupta , Arnav Mittal, Zubin Singh, Aakash Mishra, Shubham Sharma, Vikramaditya Singh, Kushagra Singh, Rudrali Patil, Abhishek Singh, Anmol Agarwal, Prateek Arora, Vikramaditya Sanghi, Abhishek Singh