Delhi HC reserves verdict on petitions against release of '2020 Delhi'

The independent candidate’s counsel added that the film’s release ahead of the elections could unfairly influence public perception, thereby affecting free and fair elections.
'2020 Delhi' film poster
'2020 Delhi' film poster
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: The high court on Friday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the release of the film 2020 Delhi, based on the 2020 Delhi riots, along with its trailer on YouTube.

Justice Sachin Datta, after hearing the arguments, stated, “I will pass the order” but did not specify a date for the pronouncement.

The first petition was filed by Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the riots-related Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case, who alleged that the film portrays him as the mastermind behind the violence. The second petition was jointly filed by riot-accused, including Tasleem Ahmed, and a few riot victims.

A third petition was moved by Umang, an independent candidate contesting the upcoming Assembly elections, arguing that the film’s release could impact the electoral process.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Tasleem Ahmed and others, contended that the film violated the Cinematograph Act and the Contempt of Courts Act.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the film’s production house, countered that the challenge was premature as the film had not yet received certification.

He assured the court that the movie would only be released after clearance from film certification body, CBFC.

“...the CBFC will assess it as per the law,” Mehta submitted.

He also asserted that no certification was required for the trailer itself, a point contested by the petitioners.

Advocate Warisha Farasat, appearing for Sharjeel Imam, argued that the film’s trailer could severely prejudice her client’s ongoing trial. She pointed out that the trailer begins with a speech strikingly similar to the one attributed to Imam in the charge sheet.

The independent candidate’s counsel added that the film’s release ahead of the elections could unfairly influence public perception, thereby affecting free and fair elections.

ASG Chetan Sharma, representing the Union Government and CBFC, argued that the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were not maintainable.

He stated judicial intervention under Article 226 was only warranted if the government had acted unlawfully or failed to fulfill its legal obligations, which was not the case here.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com