Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Pleas Against Movie Based on 2020 Delhi Riots

Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Pleas Against Movie Based on 2020 Delhi Riots

Reserves Judgment After Detailed Hearing

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its judgment on three petitions challenging the release of a film reportedly based on the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The bench, comprising Justice Sachin Datta, thoroughly examined arguments from all involved parties, addressing concerns about the film's potential influence on ongoing legal proceedings and the sensitive nature of the subject matter.

Petitioners and Their Concerns

The first petition was filed by Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the riots case. The second petition was submitted by five individuals, and the third by Umang, an independent candidate contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. The primary concern among petitioners was the portrayal of events in the film and its potential impact on legal and political affairs.

Filmmakers' Response and Legal Stand

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the filmmakers, opposed the petitions and clarified that the film had not yet received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for public screening. He assured the court that the movie would not be made available on social media until it was officially certified. Furthermore, he emphasized that there would be no public screening until the CBFC granted the necessary certification. Mehta also highlighted that no certification was required for the trailer of the film.

Government’s Stand on the Petition’s Maintainability

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Union Government and the CBFC, argued that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. He explained that Article 226 could only be invoked when the government acted unlawfully or in violation of established legal norms, which was not the case here.

ASG Sharma further referenced the IT Rules of 2021, stating that any request for content removal must include the relevant social media platforms as parties to the petition. Since the petitioners failed to do so, the plea, he argued, should not be entertained by the court.

Election Commission's Consideration on the Matter

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), informed the court that the commission was considering the issue. The potential influence of the film on the electoral process was a crucial aspect under examination.

Sharjeel Imam's Legal Arguments

Sharjeel Imam, through his counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, argued that the film’s trailer unfairly depicted Imam as the central figure behind the riots. She pointed out that the trailer opened with a speech delivered by a character modeled after Imam.

Farasat further contended that the dialogue in the trailer mirrored exact phrases attributed to Imam in the chargesheet of the ongoing UAPA case related to the riots, which is still pending trial. She stressed that since the legal proceedings were at a critical stage, the trailer's content could compromise Imam's right to a fair trial, thereby prejudicing the case.

Claims of Misrepresentation and Constitutional Violations

Sharjeel Imam’s plea alleged that the filmmakers had deliberately misrepresented events, circumvented legal frameworks, and ignored constitutional safeguards. His counsel argued that the portrayal of Imam in the film could distort public perception and hinder judicial proceedings.

Contempt of Court and Cinematograph Act Violations Alleged

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing multiple individuals, argued that the trailer violated Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act and the Contempt of Courts Act. He likened the film to an “iceberg,” suggesting that the trailer was only the “tip” and that deeper concerns remained regarding its content.

Pracha further pointed to the trailer's claim that the film was inspired by true events of the 2020 riots, arguing that such statements amplified concerns about potential bias and legal infractions.

Impact on Upcoming Elections

The counsel representing the third petitioner, independent candidate Umang, raised concerns that the trailer and the film could influence the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. He argued that the release of such content could interfere with the principle of free and fair elections, potentially shaping voter perceptions in a prejudicial manner.

Awaiting the Court’s Decision

After hearing arguments from all parties, the Delhi High Court reserved its order, indicating that it would issue its ruling after due consideration of all aspects presented. The judgment is expected to clarify the legal standing of the film’s release, the necessity of CBFC certification, and its potential implications on judicial and electoral processes.

This case remains a focal point in discussions about the intersection of law, media, and politics, as stakeholders await the court’s decision on whether the film can be screened publicly or if restrictions will be imposed in light of legal and constitutional concerns!