© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Kerala HC film screening: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ordered the screening of Malayalam film ‘Haal’ after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) proposed an ‘A’ certificate for it, besides suggesting certain modifications and cuts in its scenes. This, however, is not the first time a court has ordered a review before the movie’s release.
Here’s a list of five such instances when benches have either reviewed or ordered screenings after a movie got dragged to court.
The Kerala High Court decided to watch the Suresh Gopi-starrer JSK: Janaki vs State of Kerala when the producer of the movie moved high court over the delay in granting a certificate to the film. The CBFC demanded a change in the title of the movie saying Janaki is also a name for goddess Sita.
Justice N Nagaresh subsequently asked the CBFC to issue certification promptly when the producers decided to change the name of the movie from ‘Janaki v/s State of Kerala’ to ‘V Janaki v/s State of Kerala’. The producers also agreed to mute the name of Janaki at two instances in the movie.
The Bombay High Court in August watched ‘Ajey’, a movie based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, after the producer, Samrat Cinematics India Pvt Ltd, moved court citing “repeated delays” by the CBFC in granting certification.
The delay was stated to be “unreasonable” and “unexplained”.
The film was stated to be inspired by Shantanu Gupta’s book, The Monk Who Became Chief Minister: The Definitive Biography of Yogi Adityanath (2017), as per the producers of the movie.
The high court allowed the theatrical release of this film giving directions to the CBFC to certify the film without any modifications.
The Bombay High Court watched the movie called ‘Hamare Baarah’ starring actor Annu Kapoor after several plea sought a ban on the movie on the ground that it was derogatory towards the Muslim community.
The high court after reviewing the film gave a green signal to its release observing that the movie is a “thinking movie” and not the sort where the audience is expected to “keep their brains at home”.
The court also mentioned that the audience is “not gullible or silly”.
Notably, the court initially deferred the film’s release but later allowed the release after the makers of the film said they had removed the objectionable portion in line with the CBFC’s directions.
The Akshay Kumar-starrer movie got into legal trouble before its release. The Bombay High Court, in this instance, appointed a three-member panel to watch the film.
The film was facing the allegations that it made the legal and judicial system a laughing stock.
The committee said the film’s content “defames” lawyers and amounted to “contempt of court”.
The high court ordered the removal of four scenes from the movie which the committee’s report suggested to be “defaming” the judiciary.
The producer of the movie, Fox Studio, challenged the high court’s direction in the Supreme Court but later withdrew the plea while agreeing to the four cuts in the film.
Controversy surrounded the film starring Shahid Kapoor and Alia Bhatt after it was alleged that it portrayed Punjab in poor light.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the producer and the CBFC for a pre-release screening for the court’s representative to analyse and submit a report.
The movie was viewed by amicus curiae Sanjay N Kantawala and representatives of the petitioner, the Centre, the CBFC and the producer.
The court considered the release of the movie when Kantawala said the movie showed no negative branding of the state, being suitable for adults.
These cases are reflective of courts taking a closer look whenever artistic or creative expressions become a subject matter of legal adjudication while balancing it with societal sensitivities.
