Supreme Court to hear fresh plea against Padmaavat
The court ordered deletion of these passages from the petition.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on January 29 a fresh plea for a direction to the producer of Hindi film Padmaavat for deletion of certain objectionable scenes which were not permitted by the court.
A lawyer, who failed in his twin attempts in the Supreme Court in getting Deepika Padukone-starrer stalled from being released, filed his third petition against the film on the eve of its all-India release.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, however, declined early hearing of the PIL on a mention made by advocate M.L. Sharma pleading for urgent listing.
When Mr Sharma filed a petition in November last for the ban on the film, senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the producer, took exception to the advocate quoting certain distorted portions in history. The court ordered deletion of these passages from the petition and made it clear that the deleted portions relating to historical facts should not be used in any manner.
In the fresh plea, Mr Sharma submitted that Padmaavat contains all the objectionable portions which were ordered to be deleted. Hence, the court should hear the plea immediately. He said the PIL raised important questions of law, viz whether the producer can indulge in character assassination of Queen Padmavati and whether right to freedom of speech and creative expression allow the producer to violate the fundamental rights of others.
The top court had dismissed the plea on November 20 last year saying it cannot pre-judge a movie which was then before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for grant of certification.
On January 18, the Supreme Court revoked the ban on the film imposed by certain States and said “it is the duty and obligation of the state to maintain law and order. Once the Parliament has conferred the responsibility and power on a statutory Board and the Board has certified the film, non-exhibition of the film by States is contrary to statutory provisions.”