New Delhi [India], February 1 : The Delhi High Court disposed of four petitions challenging the release of the movie '2020 Delhi', noting that it was premature for the court to examine the objections, as the necessary certification is still pending with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta also acknowledged the producers' submission that the CBFC certification had not yet been obtained and that until such certification is granted, the producers would refrain from publicly screening the movie or releasing it on social media.
Additionally, the producers clarified that the film is a fictionalized and dramatized account, not intended to depict a literal recreation of the events that occurred in February 2020. They also committed to including a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie and its trailer to this effect, noted the court.
Taking these submissions into account, the court observed that the trailer's disclaimer would address any concerns that the film misrepresents actual events, said the court.
Furthermore, the court noted the Election Commission of India's (ECI) ongoing examination of the complaint regarding the movie's potential influence on voters and political narratives. It deemed it appropriate for the ECI to continue its review of the issue.
The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order on three petitions challenging the release of a movie reportedly based on the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The bench, of Justice Sachin Datta, heard the matter in detail, taking into account arguments from all parties involved. The court carefully considered concerns about the potential impact of the film on ongoing legal proceedings and the sensitive nature of the subject matter before deciding to reserve its judgment.
The first petition was filed by Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the riots case. The second petition involves five individuals and the third petition was filed by Umang, an independent candidate running in the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the filmmakers, opposed the petitions and informed the court that the movie has not yet received a certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for public screening. He further assured the court that the film would not be made available on social media until it has been officially certified. Mehta also clarified that there would be no public screening of the movie until the necessary certification from the CBFC is obtained. He added that no certificate is required for the trailer of the film.
ASG Chetan Sharma, representing the Union Government and the CBFC, argued that the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable.
He stated, "Article 226 applies only when the government acts in contravention of the law or has done something wrong. Neither of these situations applies here."
Referring to the IT Rules of 2021, ASG Sharma further pointed out that a request for content removal could only be considered if the relevant social media platforms, where the content is published, were made parties to the petition. Since this was not done in the present case, the petition should not be entertained.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), stated that the ECI is currently considering the issue.
Sharjeel Imam, through his counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, argued that the movie's trailer unfairly portrays Imam as the central figure behind the riots. She pointed out that the trailer opens with a speech made by a character, which is depicted as Imam.
The dialogue in the trailer, she claimed, mirrors the exact words attributed to Imam in the chargesheet of the ongoing UAPA case related to the riots, which is still pending in trial court. Advocate Farasat emphasized that the case is at a critical stage, and the trailer's content could undermine Imam's right to a fair and impartial trial, potentially prejudicing the proceedings.
Sharjeel Imam's plea alleged that the creators of the film have intentionally and deliberately thwarted the legal processes that exist, ignored the constitutional framework and purposefully portrayed a misrepresentative account of the alleged events that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
However, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing several individuals argued that the film's trailer violated Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, as well as the Contempt of Courts Act. He described the film as an "iceberg," with the trailer being merely the "tip of the iceberg."
He further highlighted a reference in the trailer stating that the film was inspired by the true events of the 2020 riots, which he claimed added to the concern of potential prejudice and legal violations.
Meanwhile, the court also heard the counsel representing the third petitioner, the independent candidate. He argued that both the trailer and the film could influence the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections, potentially undermining the principle of free and fair elections.