In a bid to insulate the Censor Board from taking an objective decision on the release of movie Padmavati, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked those holding positions of responsibility in the Government to refrain from making any comments that could ‘prejudice’ the Board. But even as the SC’s observations came, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar became the latest to join issue saying his Government is not in favour of allowing the release of the movie until the filmmakers issued a clarification to end the controversy.
The Sanjay leela Bhansali film has been in the proverbial eye of the storm over allegations that it distorts history. “I am not in favour of the movie’s release until its producer, director and all those who are associated with it offer a clarification putting the controversy to rest,” Kumar told reporters. He, however, did not specify what clarification he was looking for.
Without naming anyone, the apex court passed scathing comments on the recent outbursts by persons holding ‘public posts’ and ‘responsible posts’ and said, “When a matter is going to be dealt with by Censor Board, none who is holding any public post or responsible position should comment how certificate is to be issued. This will tantamount to creating prejudice in the mind of Censor Board.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ml Sharma challenging the overseas release of the film Padmavati at a time when the Censor Board is yet to grant certificate for its screening in India. The petition even sought criminal case to be lodged against the film director Sanjay leela Bhansali and its producer for harming the sentiments of the Rajput community.
At the outset, senior advocate Harish Salve who represented the film producer Viacom 18 said that his client has no intention to release the movie overseas till the Board has issued a certificate. However, on the petition making scurrilous charges against the film director and producer, Salve demanded costs to be imposed on the petitioner.
The bench noted how the petition was a classic case of how ‘public interest litigation has come to be abused’ and termed the prayers of the petition to be unwarranted. On the question of lodging criminal case, the bench summarily dismissed it as ‘misconceived’ stating no case was made out.
The Court suddenly shifted the debate to recent political statements issued against the film by Chief Ministers of half a dozen states. The Court sought the opinion of Additional Solicitor Generals (ASG) Maninder Singh and PS Narsimha in this regard and said, “The issue is very vital. Please take it seriously. If the Court cannot prejudge the issue, we are surprised how anybody else can prejudge. When a matter is pending for grant of certification, can responsible people sitting in positions of power say certain things on certain aspects…This violates the fundamental principle of rule of law.”