The Supreme Court on Thursday junked a last minute bid to stall the screening of a documentary film on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, due for release on Friday. Upholding the right to free speech and expression as being sacrosanct, the Bench headed by Chief Justice scoffed at the attempt made to muzzle creativity of a director in producing a work of art and advised Courts to go slow to in granting injunction on the release of any creative work, unless the depiction is prohibited under any law.
The order came on a petition filed by Nachiketa Walhekar, the man who is accused of throwing ink at Kejriwal while attending a press conference at Constitution Club in November 2013. Through his counsel Pushkar Sharma, Walhekar sought stay on the nationwide release of the film titled An Insignificant Man as it reproduced the original video clip showing the act of throwing ink. According to him, this cannot be permitted as the complaint related to the incident is pending trial before Patiala House courts in Delhi and the video was part of case record.
Warlekar, in his petition filed through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh submitted that the movie makers should either take permission of the trial court prior to screening of the film or run a disclaimer as the film depicts him as a convict even when the trial is underway.
With the film being cleared by the Censor Board, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had no hesitation to dismiss the same. As regards the apprehension that the trial will be affected, the bench left it for the trial court to adjudicate. Refusing to put any curbs on the freedom of speech and expression, the bench said, "An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind."
The Bench gave the example of the movie Bandit Queen which was allowed screening by the apex court and said, "A thought provoking film should never mean that it has to be didactic or in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughts of the viewer. If there has to be any limitation, it has to be as per the prescription in law."