CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court on Wednesday restrained Ele Animations Pvt Ltd from releasing its animated film ‘Mahaprabhu Jagannath,’ scheduled to hit theatres on July 17, observing that the objections raised over its portrayal of Lord Jagannath require detailed judicial scrutiny before the film can be exhibited.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice MS Raman passed the interim order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Mahesh Kumar Sahu of Angul, along with Dr Pramod Kumar Acharya of Puri and Umashankar Acharya of Nimapada. The petition sought cancellation of the film’s certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and a direction restraining its public screening in Odisha.
Issuing notices to the concerned parties, the bench directed Ele Animations not to release the film on July 17 ‘or thereafter without leave of the Court or until the next date, whichever is earlier.’ The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 5.
The petitioners alleged that the teaser, released on June 6, sparked widespread objections from devotees, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration and other stakeholders over the film’s title and depiction of Lord Jagannath. According to the plea, a special screening was later organised in the presence of the Gajapati Maharaja of Puri and temple authorities, where several scenes were objected to for being inconsistent with established temple traditions and religious scriptures.
Although the producer reportedly assured viewers that changes would be made, the petition claimed the revised version retained the disputed content. Senior Advocate Manoj Mishra argued on behalf of the petitioners.
The petition specifically objected to fictional depictions of Lord Jagannath’s childhood, dialogue, adventures and battle sequences, contending that they were contrary to the Skanda Purana, Brahma Purana and long-standing temple traditions.
Opposing the plea, the producer argued that the film carried a disclaimer describing it as a fictional work and asserted that it was protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The producer also contended that the PIL was filed at the last moment despite substantial investment in the project. Senior Advocate Gautam Mukherjee represented the producer.
Balancing the competing claims, the bench observed: “While taking shelter under the freedom of expression and/or speech as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, a balance has to be created between such rights and the restrictions imposed under Article 19(2).”
The court further noted, “At times it may shatter the sentiments, the emotions and the religious belief, which cannot be allowed, if it results in unrest in the peaceful society.”