Bollywood movie ‘Indu Sarkar’, based on the 1975-1977 Emergency period, would hit the screens tomorrow with the Supreme Court today rejecting the plea of a woman, who claimed to be the biological daughter of late Sanjay Gandhi, for a stay on its release.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, said that the Madhur Bhandarkar-directed movie was an “artistic expression” within the parameters of the law and there was no justification to stall its scheduled release tomorrow.
The bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, observed that the petition filed by Priya Singh Paul, who claimed to be the biological daughter of Sanjay Gandhi, was “devoid of merits”.
“Depiction of history has its own nuances and perception.
Allow the researchers and projectors to showcase their work.
Do not go behind them,” the bench said.
“As far as the exhibition of the movie is concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that it is an artistic expression within the parameters of law and there is no warrant or justification to curtail the same ,” the court said.
However, it observed that it did not intend to comment anything on the aspect of status of the petitioner as it might have a bearing on another pending petition by her in a court.
“We are of the considered opinion that so far as the perception of the (Bombay) High Court on status of the petitioner is concerned, there cannot be any dispute as the issue has been left open,” it noted in its order.
The petitioner had challenged the July 24 verdict of the Bombay High Court which had dismissed her plea to quash the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
Another petition filed by an advocate in the Delhi High Court seeking revocation of the censor board clearance given to the film was also dismissed.
The high court said merely stating that “one is a strong believer of the Gandhis does not give a right to seek a stay on the release of the film”.
In the apex court, senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Bhandarkar, argued that cuts suggested by a committee of the CBFC have already been carried out and a disclaimer put in the movie makes it absolutely clear that it has no resemblance with any person, living or dead.
He also contended that characters depicted in the film were “purely fictional” and there was no question of maligning anybody’s image.
Senior advocate K Sultan Singh, representing the petitioner, alleged that the movie depicted the period of the Emergency and persons related to that era have been shown in poor light.
“This is purely a commercial venture and it has nothing to do with education or documentation of that era,” he said while claiming that Bhandarkar, in a TV interview, has himself said that the movie contains 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent facts.
He claimed that there were certain parts in the movie which referred to the Emergency and this affected the personal life of the depicted protagonists and such a projection affected the reputation of the personalities of that period.
“When there is amalgam of facts and fiction, this court should interfere and restrain the exhibition of the movie,” he argued.
“From where did he get such facts? There were commissions of inquiry. The Emergency was an act of governance and whatever had happended at that time, the government faced the wrath and was shown the door. Personal issues were involved in the film and the facts were concocted,” he claimed.
When the counsel alleged that former prime minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay were depicted in poor light in the movie, the bench told him, “Disclaimers are there in the movie.”
The bench also asked as to how many cuts were suggested by the CBFC before issuing certification to the movie.
Mehta said the censor board had initially suggested 14 cuts, but later the revision committee reduced the number of cuts and they have already adhered to the suggestion.
“The disclaimer put forth by us is absolutely clear as crystal that it has no semblance with regard to living or dead characters of history and, if it is so, it is purely coincidental,” he said.
The bench noted the submission by Mehta that it was a dramatisation of a situation portrayed in the movie and, in any case, a film director has the fundamental right to express himself as long as it remained within its boundaries.
Bhandarkar’s counsel also argued that the film director has conducted a “proper research and taken the facts from published books” and his right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed by a prohibitory order.
During the hearing, the apex court observed that national interest and right to know were paramount than individual reputation and wondered “why should there be a ban on a movie or even a book.”
The film has evoked strong criticism and protests from Congress members.
( Source – PTI )
