Supreme Court junks plea seeking cuts in Padmavati

New Delhi: Amid threats to actors and makers of controversial film Padmavati, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition seeking deletion of allegedly objectionable scenes from the Bollywood movie, saying the plea was  “premature”.

The apex court refused to interfere with the release of the film, whose makers have voluntarily put off its release beyond the scheduled date of December 1, pointing out that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is yet to grant certification to the movie.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, dismissed the public interest writ petition and said, “Our (court) interference will tantamount to prejudging the matter. We do not intend to do so. Needless to say that the admitted pleadings are premature.” Petitioner advocate M.L. Sharma submitted before the bench, which also included Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, that though the CBFC had not issued certification to the film, its songs allegedly projecting Rani Padmavati as a dancer.

The CJI said, “The Censor Board has a statutory duty. How are they going to decide is their job. Can we say that you decide in a particular manner? Can we injunct the Censor Board not to exercise its statutory duty?”

The development in the apex court came on a day when CBFC chief Prasoon Joshi, speaking to reporters at the Goa film festival, said, “We are trying to follow processes. Instead of arguments, attempts are being made to have a dialogue on the issue.”

Though Alauddin Khalji’s siege of Chittor in 1303 is a historical fact, most modern historians reject the authenticity of Rani Padmini and the best-known story about the siege. The earliest source to mention Rani Padmavati is an epic poem, Padmavat, written by Sufi poet Makil Muhammad Jayasi in Awadhi in 1540.

Karni Sena, a fringe political group, has been protesting against the film since its shooting began. They allege that the film shows a romantic relationship between Rani Padmavati and Khalji. More protests erupted after the film’s song Ghoomar released, alleging that “it is an artistic and historic fraud to portray an incorrectly attired courtesan-like painted doll in the song as the very ‘queen’ the film purports to pay obeisance to.”

Meanwhile, Haryana BJP served a show cause notice to its chief media coordinator Suraj Pal Amu seeking an explanation over his reported remarks offering `10 crore bounty for beheading Padmavati director Sanjay Leela Bhansali and actor Deepika Padukone.

Tthe National Commission for Women (NCW) has also asked the Haryana police to look into reports of the BJP leader allegedly saying, “I want to congratulate the Meerut youth who announced a `5 crore bounty for beheading Deepika Padukone and Sanjay Leela Bhansali.”

Earlier in the apex court, senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for the producer and director of the film, opposed Mr Sharma’s petition claiming that his averments were objectionable.

Directing deletion of the objectionable averments, the court said, “Pleadings in court are not meant to create any kind of disharmony in a society which believes in conceptual unity among diversity.”       

Mr Sharma said that the film indulged in character assassination of Rani Padmavati and such a film cannot be allowed to be screened without deleting the objectionable portions. He said that the producer and director of the film should be prosecuted for defaming the Rani Padmavati.

Mr Salve refuted the allegations and said that the examining committee of the Censor Board was yet to view the film, which was returned on some technical grounds. What had been released are the trailer and promos, which have been approved by the Censor Board. He said the film’s songs had been cleared by the Censor Board and objected to the manner in which the petition was drafted containing allegations and distortions.