On June 28, the Allahabad High Court resumed the hearing regarding the two pleas that had challenged the objectionable dialogues and scenes in Adipurush. Notably, a day earlier, on June 27, the court had conducted an hour-long hearing in this matter.
After resumption, the court questioned the portrayal of religious characters shown in the film. It stressed that no one thinks like this about Ramayana characters as the filmmakers have shown in the movie. The court observed, “Does anyone imagine the religious characters to be in existence in the way they are shown in the movie? The attire worn by the characters in the movie, do we imagine our Gods to be like this? Ramcharitmanas is a sacred text, people recite it before leaving their homes and you depict it in such a pathetic way?”
Court criticised CBFC for certifying the movie
The Court questioned the Film certification board and remarked that it has committed a blunder by certifying such a movie. Responding to this, Dy. SGI argued that the certification was done by a board comprising sensible members.
To which the court said, “Aap keh rahe hain ki sanskar wale logon ne is movie ko certify kiya hai (referring to board members) jahan Ramayana ke baare mein aisa dikhaya gaya hai to wo log dhanya hai.” (You are saying people with culture have certified this film (referring to board members) where Ramayana is shown like this then those people are blessed).
During the hearing, the court also directed the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to submit their separate affidavits in this matter.
Such depictions hurt people’s sentiment
The Court acknowledged that the movie’s depiction of religious characters from Ramayana may have offended people’s sentiments. It further mentioned that there have been instances in recent times where Hindu deities were portrayed in a funny manner in various movies.
Allahabad High Court: Yes, the sentiments have been hurt as claimed in the PIL pleas before us. From where did the producers of the movie get their content from?#Adipurush #AdipurushRow #AdipurushControversy #AllahabadHighCourt
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 28, 2023
The court remarked, “If we will shut our mouths today then you know what will happen? These incidents are increasing day by day. I saw a movie wherein Lord Shankar was shown running with his Trishul in a very funny manner. Now, these things will be showcased? The filmmakers earn money as films do business.”
#AllahabadHighCourt: "I am unable to comprehend what went through the minds of the Film makers that they made such a movie. Unhe to sirf paise kamane hain film hit karakar. Maine jaisa kaha ki bade funny tarah se Hindu devi devtaon ko dikhaya jaata hai.#Adipurush
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 28, 2023
The court highlighted that there would have been severe consequences if any documentary would have depicted wrong things about Quran. However, it categorically asserted that sacred texts such as Quran, and Bible should not be touched and any religion should not be portrayed in a negative way.
Additionally, the court assured everyone that the courts belong to all religions, it is by chance that the concerned case relates to Ramayana.
The court added, “Suppose you (the filmmakers) make even a short documentary on the Quran, depicting wrong things, then you will see what will happen. However, I may once again clarify that it is not about any one religion. It is by chance that this issue is concerned with Ramayana, otherwise, Court belongs to all religions.”
"Suppose, if you make even a short documentary on the Quran, depicting wrong things, then you will see what will happen." : #AllahabadHighCourt said as it clarified that the issue isn't about any one religion. #Adipurush#AdipurushRow#Adipurushmovie#AdipurushControversy
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 28, 2023
The bench further stated that it sought opinions from various individuals regarding the film, and the feedback indicated that the film is intolerable and many had left it mid-way.
The Court said, “Few people could not watch the film completely. Those who respect Lord Rama, Lord Laxman, and Maa Sita, can not watch such a movie.”
Earlier observations of the court
A day earlier, on June 27, the two-judge bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh conducted an hour-long hearing in the case.
On day 1, the court slammed the makers of the film for objectionable portrayal of Ramayana’s character. In a strong criticism, the court stated that if a religion is tolerant, will it be put to the test?
The bench remarked, “If we close our eyes on this issue too, because it is said that the people of this religion are very tolerant, will it be put to test as well?.”
The court added, “The one who is gentle should be suppressed? Is it so? It is good that it is about religion, the believers of which did not create any law and order problem. We should be thankful. We saw in the news that some people had gone to cinema halls (wherein the movie was being exhibited) and they only forced them to close the hall, they could have done something else as well.”
On the issue of the disclaimer, the court asked a sharp question and said do the people who put the disclaimer consider the countrymen, and youth to be brainless? You show Lord Rama, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravana, and Lanka and then say it is not Ramayan.
The court also remarked that Ramayana is a paragon for us and people read Ramcharitmanas before leaving home. The court also asserted that such things should be left untouched.
Additionally, the court also made film dialogue writer Manoj Muntashir Shukla a petitioner in the case and ordered to send him a notice.
The Court will continue to hear the pleas in the coming days.
