Delhi High Court: A petition was filed raising a common grievance that a Movie titled as “2020 Delhi” (‘the Movie’), of which a ‘trailer’ is accessible on social media, depicts a highly prejudicial and distorted account of the riots that took place in North-East Delhi in February, 2020, and thereby create a false and disruptive narrative having serious repercussions. Sachin Datta, J., held that the petition was premature as the film had not yet been released, and declined to grant any relief at this stage.
The petitions alleged that the movie will severely prejudice the ongoing trial in respect of the events/ incidents that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020 and the same will tend to interfere in the administration of justice and, therefore, falls within the sweep of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. It further alleged that the petitioners in each of these petitions further submit that the Movie trailer is being widely circulated on online platforms, and the same by itself presents a distorted, erroneous, and false narrative.
The petitioners have alleged that the Movie unfairly projects them in a negative light, demonizing them and virtually condemning them even before the conclusion of their trial. They seek a postponement of the Movie’s release until the trial concludes. It is assumed that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has already granted certification for the Movie’s public screening. The petitioners challenge this certification and request that the producers be restrained from releasing the Movie until the criminal cases against them are resolved.
Additionally, the petitioners argued that the Movie has the potential to incite communal discord and disturb public order, violating constitutional guarantees of secularism. They contend that it contravenes the Cinematograph Act, 1952, along with related rules and guidelines, and would infringe Articles 19(2) and 25 of Constitution of India if released. Further, a complaint has been made to the Election Commission of India, seeking to halt the Movie’s release as it may influence the ongoing Legislative Assembly elections in Delhi and manipulate voters. The petitioner has also demanded the removal of the trailer from all social media platforms.
The Court noted that counsel for Union of India stated that the CBFC certification for the public screening of the Movie in question, is yet to be obtained and unless and until the requisite certification is obtained from the Central Board of Film Certification, the producers shall necessarily refrain from public screening of the Movie, including in theatres, pending certification of the Movie, the producers shall not release the same through any social media platform; and the Movie is a fictional and dramatized account. It does not purport to represent/ portray a recreation of the events that transpired in February, 2020, and a disclaimer to this effect shall be exhibited at the beginning of the movie and also at the beginning of the Movie’s official trailer. Thus, the Court said that a substantial part of the controversy sought to be raised by the petitioners has become moot.
The Court remarked that “at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie.”
As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the trailer of the Movie is being used to influence voters and/ or create a political narrative, the Court observed that it would be apposite for the Election Commission of India to examine the complaint of the said petitioner, and if warranted, take suitable measures as per the applicable rules and guidelines. The Court took note of the statement made by the counsel for the Election Commission that they are in the process of examining the complaint and the same shall be dealt with on priority and decided as expeditiously as possible.
[Sahil Parvez v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1192/2025, decided on 31-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Mohd. Hasn, Mr. Nujhat Naseem and Ms. Heema, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASC, Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta , Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Zubin Singh, Mr. Aakash Mishra, Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kushagra Singh, Ms. Rudrali Patil, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Anmol Agarwal, Mr. Prateek Arora, Mr. Vikramaditya Sanghi and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advs. for R-3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
