New Delhi: Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh governments suffered a setback on Tuesday with the Supreme Court refusing to modify its order staying the ban on release of Hindi film Padmaavat on January 25, reminding authorities that if the court backs down then people would make a virtue of creating trouble.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, stood firm on its January 18 decision to allow screening of the film across the country and said, “Our order is to be complied with by one and all. A hundred or 200 people cannot take to the streets and demand ban on a movie. It is unthinkable. These people better abide by it.”
Reminding the states about their duty and obligation to ensure public order, the CJI rapped their contention that the screening of the movie would trigger large-scale violence.
“It is implicit in your arguments that the authorities are incapable of ensuring law and order,” the court said.
The bench, which also included Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, said that it was the state governments’ responsibility to take measures to protect the movie, its artistes and the public who come to watch it in the theatres. Justice Chand-rachud observed, “There is no way the court would back down. Otherwise, these people will make a virtue of creating trouble. They will first create trouble and then make a virtue of creating trouble.”
Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta said that the states did not want to adopt an “ostrich-like appro-ach” to violence. “Trouble already exists,” he said.
At the outset Mr Mehta, appearing for Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, said that caste groups should be first allowed to have their say in court.
The CJI, however, retorted, “Why? You have come to the Supreme Court. You start by saying what you want.”
Justice Chandrachud refe-rred to a paragraph, in the states’ application seeking modification of the court’s earlier order, that read, “Vio-lence continues before and after the January 18 order of the Supreme Court to allow the screening of the movie”.
Justice Chandrachud said, “The violence is despite the states’ duty and obligation to ensure public order. What is the meaning of this paragraph? How can we entertain this?”
When Mr Mehta said, “This Paragraph does not exist. Please forget it,” Justice Chandrachud quipped, “If this paragraph does not exist, your application does not exist.” “If we understand your intention, your prayer is ‘please allow us to ban the movie again’. But we are not inclined to modify our order,” said Justice Chandrachud.
When counsel for Kshatriya community described Padmaavat as a “distortion of history,” the court said, “There is a disclaimer in the film. It says the movie is not a portrayal of history. You please educate your members about what a disclaimer is.”
On January 18, the Supreme Court had revoked a ban imposed by the two state government on the film’s release and said that “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”.
The states had invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to argue that the law provided the states to finally decide whether exhibition of a movie may trigger public unrest.
