‘ADIPURUSH' In the Spotlight: Questioning the Judicial Overreach.

Recently, the Allahabad HC delivered an order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to Ban the Film ‘Adipurush’ as it depicted religious Gods and characters in a disgusting and vulgar manner, hurting the sentiments of the public at large. The Court has made scathing remarks against the moviemakers pointing out that certain characters and scenes are obscene, ridiculous and cheap. The Court also went on to the extent of ordering the personal appearance of the Director, Producer and the Writer of the Film. In this discourse, let it be known that my contention does not revolve around the veracity or the accurate portrayal of our idols’ characters within the cinematic creation, but rather my focus is on the conduct of the Judiciary, which in my humble opinion, amounts to what I dare to define as a manifestation of Judicial overreach. I shall enumerate the reasons below that have led me to this conclusion, drawing from the Order of the High Court in the PIL (Kuldeep Tiwari vs. Union of India).

Before analyzing the High Court’s Order, it is pertinent to understand the role of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the procedure established in the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Act establishes the ‘CBFC’ as the governing body for films in India, responsible for granting certificates to filmmakers for public exhibition. The Board has the authority to approve the film for unrestricted public exhibition; Require specific edits and modifications in the film before granting approval for unrestricted public exhibition; and reject the film’s approval for public exhibition. Section 5-E grants the Central Government (CG) i.e., the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) the power to suspend or revoke a film’s certificate for such period if it is found to be exhibited in violation of the Act and its corresponding Rules. Further, when a film is released, under Section 6 of the Act the CG has the power to take appropriate steps in the interest of the public at large by invoking its revisional powers once the film is released.

The High Court right from the beginning of the Order, categorized certain scenes as obscene and dialogues as substandard based on a prima facie view on the material submitted by the petitioners. The court opined that the manner in which movie makers employed their freedom of expression is against the principles of decency, morality, and public order as outlined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. But the Court in particular has not given a reasoned order as to why it is necessary to restrict the fundamental right of freedom of speech of the moviemaker in this particular instance, which must satisfy the exceptions outlined in Article 19. It is pertinent to mention here that it is our Constitutional Jurisprudence that the reasonableness of the restriction (in this case the banning of the movie) has to be judged in reference to the effect it creates but not based on conjectural assumptions, which is this case an assumption that feelings and emotions of the public at large are affected. When it comes to the exception of public order, free speech can only be restricted when there is clear and imminent danger. The only question is how the court understands ground reality, whether there is an imminent danger and public order issue or not. Such calculations solemnly and rightfully fall within the purview of the Government/executive, rather than being subject to the judgments of individuals serving as Judges or PIL petitioners.

when it comes to decency and Morality, the assumption arrived at by the court is solely on the PIL filed and looking at the prima-facie submissions and evidence. It is well explained by the Supreme Court (SC) in the ‘Bandit Queen’ case (Bobby Art International vs Om Pal Singh) where it held that its role does not involve censoring content to safeguard the perverse or cater to the sensitivities of overly sensitive individuals and lifted the Ban imposed on the movie where the film narrates a poignant human tale, wherein the scene depicting a character’s forced naked parade holds a pivotal role. The SC has rendered numerous judgments condemning censorship, let alone outright bans, in various cases.

However, the HC after making many adverse comments on the movie, deemed it appropriate to provide the Competent Authority i.e., the MIB with an opportunity to reconsider the issue prior to issuing any interim or coercive order against the opposing parties. Further, it also suggested that appropriate order has to be made in accordance with Section 5-E of the Act. i.e., to suspend or revoke the certification. Moreover, in an unprecedented manner, it has instructed the MIB to form a committee consisting of five experts, including two individuals knowledgeable about the Valmiki Ramayana, as well as the Tulsikriti Ramcharit Manas and other religious epics to thoroughly examine the movie. This stands as an unequivocal manifestation of Judicial legislation (Judiciary making Law) and overreach, blatantly contravening the principles of law. The Committee, formed in compliance with the court’s directive, effectively assumes a role that falls within the purview of the executive. Moreover, if the High Court’s order itself includes unfavorable remarks against the movie, it raises the question of how the Honorable judges envisaged that the committee, established under their directions, would arrive at a conclusion contrary to the court’s own expressed views.

The Hon’ble High Court ventures beyond the boundaries of established legal procedures and institutions, thereby entertaining a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and issuing directives that encroach upon the exclusive domain of the Executive. Further directing action in a manner unknown to the law by creating a committee is an adventurous step. Hence, let it be ingrained in our minds that the ascendancy shall not lie in the personal moral compass of the Judges/individuals, or the mere notion of their righteousness, but shall instead find its zenith in the sanctity of constitutional morality and the firmly entrenched procedure laid down by the Law.

The Author is a Practicing Advocate at

the High Court of Telangana &

a Qualified UGC Junior Research Fellow

He can be contacted at sai.pavan@nls.ac.in