High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Release Of Movie Based On 2020 Delhi Riots

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved verdict on a batch of petitions against the release of a film titled “2020 Delhi”, based on 2020 North-East Delhi riots, and its trailer on YouTube.“I'll pass the order,” Justice Sachin Datta said while reserving judgment in three petitions filed on the issue. First petition is filed by riots accused Sharjeel Imam. Second petition is filed by five individuals- riots accused Tasleem Ahmed, Akil Ahmed and Sonu as well as riots victims Sahil Parvez and Mohd. Sayeed Salmani. The third petition is filed by Umang- an independent candidate contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly polls.During the hearing today, Advocate Mehmood Pracha appearing for Tasleem Ahmed and others submitted that the trailer of the film violated Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act as well as the Contempts of Courts Act. The film is the iceberg and the trailer is the tip of the iceberg, he said. Pracha also showed the Court about the reference in the trailer stating that the film was inspired by true events of the 2020 riots. To this, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appearing for the production house of the movie said that the petition was not maintainable as no certificate has been obtained yet by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for public screening of the film. He also said that there will be no public screening of the movie till certification is obtained by the CBFC. He also said that the film will not be screened on social media till its certification.“For me to screen the film, I would require certification. I have applied for it. The Supreme Court says the film certification agency could go into the issue of Section 5(b). I am carrying disclaimer in the trailer…. It is a movie. It has to go through the film certification. I have applied for it. The Board is yet to see it,” Mehta said. He also said that no certificate is required for the trailer of the film. However, Pracha contended that screening in the absence of certification would apply to any part of the film, including the trailer.Mehta was assisted by Advocates Kushagra Singh, Rudrali Patil and Anmol Agarwal.Appearing for petitioner Sharjeel Imam, Advocate Warisha Farasat submitted that the trailer of the movie prejudices Imam as he is shown as the main person behind the riots.She said that the trailer started with a man giving a speech, which according to her was portrayed to be Imam, and the words used by him were identical to the words attributed to Imam in the chargesheet of the UAPA case related to the riots which is pending adjudication before the trial court. She submitted that the trial in the case was at a crucial stage and Imam's right to fair and free trial will be prejudiced due to the trailer. “They have not tried to hide my identity at all. The comments are duplicate of what is in the chargesheet and even the way he is dressed. There is no way to even camouflage the identity,” she said. The Court also heard the counsel appearing for the third petitioner- the independent candidate Umang. He said that the trailer and the film will have an impact on the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly polls and will affect the principle of free and fair elections. Umang was represented by Advocate Dr. Amit George and the petition was filed through Advocate Prafull Bharadwaj.Appearing for the production house, Mehta said that the YouTube, where trailer is released, contains a disclaimer stating that the movie is a fictional work inspired by true events and certain incidents reported in the public domain. As per the disclaimer, the filmmakers have taken cinematic liberty for dramatisation and do not claim accuracy or factuality of the events.“Today the YouTube videos says that the film is a dramatized version of the events inspired on account of what has happened…. Specifically I have said that it is a dramatized version of events reported in public domain,” he said. ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for Union Government and CBFC submitted that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. “Article 226 will come in if the government acted in contravention of law or has done something which it has done wrongly. Neither of the situations have occurred here,” he said. Referring to IT Rules of 2021, ASG Sharma said that the prayer for take down of content can be granted only when the concerned social media entities on which the content is published are made parties to the petition, which was not done in the instant matter. “The Article 226 jurisdiction challenge is this. The government has bot done something against law. The government has not been alleged to have not done something which it ought to have done. This writ under Article 226 qua the government is unavailable, leaving the petitioners and producers to slug it out,” he said. Sharma also told Court that the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dealt with a similar challenge concerning the movie in question and disposed of the plea...

High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas Against Release Of Movie Based On 2020 Delhi Riots

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags