Express News Service
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, on Tuesday, expressed serious concern on the way the key characters of the epic Ramayana, based on the life and times of Lord Ram and his conquest over demon king Ravana, were depicted in the movie Aadipurush.
It observed why the tolerance level of a particular community was being put to the test.
“It is good that it is about religion, the believers of which did not create any public order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well,” said the division bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, while noting that the CBFC should have done something while granting a certificate to the film for screening.
Declining to accept the defence argument that the disclaimer of the movie makes it clear that it is not Ramayana, the bench said: “When the filmmaker has shown Lord Rama, Goddess Sita, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravan, Lanka etc., how can the disclaimer of the film convince the people at large that the story is not from Ramayana.”
The bench made serious oral observations in a crowded open court while hearing the two PILs filed by Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan over the controversial film, its exhibition and dialogues of the movie starring Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon.
Issuing notice to Manoj ‘Munatshir’ Shukla, the dialogue writer of the movie, the vacation bench of the High Court asked the deputy solicitor general SB Pandey to seek instructions as to whether the Central government was contemplating to review the certification granted to the film by the Censor Board for its screening.
The bench sought a reply from the central government and the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) by 2:15 pm on Wednesday.
While hearing the petitions, the bench was irked when apprised by the petitioner’s lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri that the movie might not only affect the sentiments of the people of a community adversely as they worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman etc., but the manner in which the characters of Ramayana were depicted would also create serious disharmony in the society.
It was further stated that the petitioner failed to understand from where the content of the film had been borrowed as nothing in that manner was narrated in Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsikrit Ramcharit Manas. The bench said that religious scriptures, towards which people are sensitive, should not be touched or encroached upon.
The Court questioned the Deputy Solicitor General of India as to how would he defend the movie when it contains prima facie objectionable scenes and dialogues. The Court, however, asked him to seek instructions in the matter from the competent authority.
Further, when the Deputy SGI informed the bench that certain objectionable dialogues of the movie were changed, the bench said that alone won’t work. “What will you do with the scenes? Seek instructions, then we will definitely do whatever we want to do…In case the exhibition of the movie is stopped, then the people whose feelings have been hurt, will get relief.”
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, on Tuesday, expressed serious concern on the way the key characters of the epic Ramayana, based on the life and times of Lord Ram and his conquest over demon king Ravana, were depicted in the movie Aadipurush.
It observed why the tolerance level of a particular community was being put to the test.
“It is good that it is about religion, the believers of which did not create any public order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well,” said the division bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, while noting that the CBFC should have done something while granting a certificate to the film for screening.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Declining to accept the defence argument that the disclaimer of the movie makes it clear that it is not Ramayana, the bench said: “When the filmmaker has shown Lord Rama, Goddess Sita, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravan, Lanka etc., how can the disclaimer of the film convince the people at large that the story is not from Ramayana.”
The bench made serious oral observations in a crowded open court while hearing the two PILs filed by Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan over the controversial film, its exhibition and dialogues of the movie starring Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon.
Issuing notice to Manoj ‘Munatshir’ Shukla, the dialogue writer of the movie, the vacation bench of the High Court asked the deputy solicitor general SB Pandey to seek instructions as to whether the Central government was contemplating to review the certification granted to the film by the Censor Board for its screening.
The bench sought a reply from the central government and the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) by 2:15 pm on Wednesday.
While hearing the petitions, the bench was irked when apprised by the petitioner’s lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri that the movie might not only affect the sentiments of the people of a community adversely as they worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman etc., but the manner in which the characters of Ramayana were depicted would also create serious disharmony in the society.
It was further stated that the petitioner failed to understand from where the content of the film had been borrowed as nothing in that manner was narrated in Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsikrit Ramcharit Manas. The bench said that religious scriptures, towards which people are sensitive, should not be touched or encroached upon.
The Court questioned the Deputy Solicitor General of India as to how would he defend the movie when it contains prima facie objectionable scenes and dialogues. The Court, however, asked him to seek instructions in the matter from the competent authority.
Further, when the Deputy SGI informed the bench that certain objectionable dialogues of the movie were changed, the bench said that alone won’t work. “What will you do with the scenes? Seek instructions, then we will definitely do whatever we want to do…In case the exhibition of the movie is stopped, then the people whose feelings have been hurt, will get relief.”
