Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Ban on Film 'Ajmer 92' and Committee Formation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent development, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chishtiya Khuddam Khwaja Saheb (Syedzadgan), Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, which sought a ban on the release of the film 'Ajmer 92' and the formation of a committee to review its content. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjeet Singh on 3rd July 2023.

The petitioner, represented by a team of advocates including Mr. Ajay Singh, Ms. Deepa Choudhary, Mr. Prawal Mishra, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Malakar, Mr. Jay Prakash, and Mr. Tribhuvan Singh Rajpoot, had approached the court with various prayers, including a request to direct the Union of India, Central Board of Film Certification, State of Rajasthan, Reliance Entertainment, U and K Films Entertainment, and Little Crew Productions to prohibit the release of the film 'Ajmer 92' on both theaters and OTT platforms, scheduled for 14th July 2023.

The petitioner further sought the constitution of a committee comprising members from the Central Board of Film Certification, the petitioner, and counsels, headed by a retired judge of the High Court. The committee would have been responsible for ensuring the absence of defamatory or derogatory content and any negative portrayal of Dargah Sharif Ajmer or related objects/items. The committee was required to submit its report to the court within seven days of its formation.

Additionally, the petitioner requested the court to order the deletion of any defamatory or derogatory content related to Dargah Sharif Ajmer and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisty from the film 'Ajmer 92' or its promotional materials. The petitioner also sought directions to websites or online platforms hosting the offensive content to remove it within 24 hours of receiving the court order. Furthermore, the petitioner urged the court to instruct law enforcement agencies to obtain all information and associated records from the platforms hosting the content.

However, after perusing the record, the court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision available before the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to address the grievances raised in the writ petition. Consequently, the court held that there were no grounds for interference by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

 Date of Decision: 03/07/2023

Anjuman Moinia vs Union Of India

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Anjuman-vs-UOI-03-July-23-Raj-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News