No SC relief to Jolly LLB 2 makers, asked to move HC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court refused to allow the release of movie Jolly LLB-2 at this stage and permitted the three-member panel appointed by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court to view it Friday afternoon and ascertain if it showed any scenes of denigrating the judiciary.

A top court bench did not accept the submissions made by senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the producers, that the move must be allowed to be released as it had been cleared by the Censor Board. When Sibal said “I myself has seen the trailer on the basis of which the panel was formed and release stayed there is nothing in it, Justice Gogoi told the counsel, “You put up your defence before the high court... say all this there... if you are unable to convince them then come back. Anyways the hearing there is on February 6. We shall hear it on 7th. Anyways the scheduled release is only on 10th so don’t worry.” 

In its appeal against the HC order, the producer submitted that the movie has already been cleared by the Censor Board and there was no necessity for a further screening before a committee. It was also argued that the petitioner had placed reliance on the basis of a trailer and some photographs without watching the full film.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court had asked the committee to find out the allegations levelled by advocate-petitioner Ajaykumar Waghmare are true. The petitioner alleged that the film is “nothing but an attempt to portray the Indian Legal Profession and Judicial System as a laughing stock to the society at large.” He said that the characters in Jolly LLB 2 are playing cards and dancing in the premises of the Court of Law which clearly shows disrespect towards judicial discipline, proceedings and ethics.

He said the characters jumping on the judge’s dais and fighting in court shows mockery of the court. The HC felt that “prima facie, though the photographs do indicate total disrespect or disregard to the high office of this court, we cannot jump to that conclusion unless the contexts in which these scenes are shown, are examined in their proper perspective and hence ordered a three member committee to watch the film and file and submit a report to the court. The present appeal is directed against this order.