A local court has slapped a penalty of Rs 3,000 to the producers of Oscar-nominated film “Newton” for delay in responding to the proceedings in connection with a civil suit over alleged depiction of the CRPF in a wrong way in the movie.
The petition was filed by a former CRPF personnel Tamal Sanyal against “Newton” producers Manish Mundra, Shiladitya Bora, and CBFC who have been arraigned in the case as respondents.
The penalty was ordered by the Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Court on August 28. “The movie Newton had no disclaimer In it, neither in cinema halls, nor on Amazon Prime. Without the disclaimer, the movie doesn't remain a work of fiction and becomes a 'documentary' and the scenes in the movie defaming CRPF don't remain an imaginary escapade, but become a real depiction of CRPF, which is highly objectionable,” reads the petition.
The court had on September 17 last year issued notices to the respondents and they had filed their written statements in February in which they admitted that there was no disclaimer on Amazon Prime and claimed that they had supplied disclaimer, but Amazon Prime did not upload it on its own.
Following the submission of the replies by the respondents beyond the 30-day stipulated period, advocates for the petitioner Vaibhav Kalra and Neha Bhatnagar moved an application before the court for impleading online movie platform "Amazon Prime" as respondent in the civil suit.
Arguing for the petitioner, Kalra and Bhatnagar told the court that the grounds in application for condoning the delay is “concocted and just an attempt to misuse the justice system.”
The pride, honour and reputation of CRPF is built upon the sacrifices it made for the country and it will not be allowed to be compromised in the name of artistic liberty, the petitioner argued.
The next date of hearing is September 18. According to the petitioner’s contention, there were many inconsistencies in the application for condonation of delay, filed by respondent and the film producer Mundra as it did not mention of number of days for which the delay was to be condoned. Mundra did not explain day to day delay, as mandated by various Supreme Court judgments. Not only day to day explanation is to be given, it is to be supported with documents also. Mundra submitted 'Renovation of Office' as cause of delay, but failed to give any specific date from which renovation started.