The Delhi High Court Wednesday refused to advance the hearing of public interest litigation (PIL) against Prabhas starrer ‘Adipurush’ seeking an immediate ban on the film for public exhibition. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Hindu Sena national president Vishnu Gupta, submitted before a division bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju and Justice Amit Mahajan the plea be listed for hearing "today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow”. It is presently listed for June 30. When the counsel submitted that the film had already been released on June 16, the court asked what was sought to be restrained if the film had already been released. To this, the petitioner's counsel submitted that he was seeking a "stay on the screening because there are many controversial parts" in the film. "You are aware of release dates well in advance. It's not as if it was announced today.why didn't you come before?" Justice Ganju asked. The counsel, however, said that when the teaser of the film was released, there was an outcry and the director and producer of the film promised that “we will remove ('the controversial parts')”, but they did not do so. He further submitted that even countries like Nepal had banned the film. "It affects international relations. If the matter is taken on June 30 the whole purpose of the petition is defeated," he added. The HC, however, did not allow for the early hearing of the plea and said, "Please come back on that day (June 30)". The PIL prays for a direction to the Centre, Central Board of Film Certification, and the State of Tamil Nadu to cancel the "certificate" granted to the film. It further prays for an "immediate ban" on the film for "public exhibition". The PIL states that the depiction of Ravana, Lord Ram, Mata Sita and Hanuman in the film is contrary to the image of these "religious characters" as depicted in Maharishi Valmiki’s Ramayan and Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas. The plea states that as per the Cinematograph Act, the film is not suitable for "unrestricted public exhibition". It further states that the depiction of Ravan is contrary to the public perception based on Valmiki's Ramayan and Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas and the "costume" of Ravana’s character and the "shape and depiction of the beard as well as the moustache" of Ravana has been shown in an entirely different manner. The plea adds that "Hindu sentiments have been badly hurt" by the film and the "distorted public exhibition of Hindu religious figures" by way of the film is a clear-cut violation of "freedom of conscience and practice in as much as the freedom to manage religious affairs" as guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
