Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the Central Government and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) challenging the impending release of the film “Emergency”, raising concerns over its portrayal of the Sikh community, a Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva,* ACJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., permitted the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the CBFC and directed the CBFC to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners regarding both the film and the trailer.
The petitioners claimed that the CBFC had issued a certificate for the film, but Sikh groups had raised objections. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted certain objectionable scenes in the trailer. The petitioners sought a stay on the film’s release, stating that a typographical error in their petition mentioned the number of Sikh voters as 1167, which was actually 11,687. This correction was noted by the Court.
The Deputy Solicitor General, representing the Union of India and CBFC, informed the Court that the film had not been certified yet. It was stated that while the Examining Committee recommended granting the film a ‘UA’ certificate with modifications, the certificate was kept on hold due to objections from Sikh groups and ongoing litigation. It was further informed to the Court that the CBFC also received representations opposing the certification.
The Court permitted the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation with their objections within three days before CBFC. The Court directed the CBFC to consider the representation before certifying the film and take appropriate steps regarding both the film and the trailer under the Cinematograph Act and the Rules before issuing certification for the film “Emergency”. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.
[Jabalpur Sikh Sangat v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5505, Decided on 03-09-2024]
* Judgment by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Shri Navtej Singh Ruprah and Shri Sudeep Singh Saini, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Pushpendra Yadav – Deputy Solicitor General with Shri Sandeep Shukla, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 3
Shri Amit Seth – Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and 5
Shri Aaqib Kazi, Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 and 7
Shri Jubin Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent No. 8 and 9.
Shri Rohan Harne – Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Akshay Sapre and Shri
Aditya Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent No. 10.
Shri Tejas Karia and Shri Siddharth Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 and 12.