Advocates Cannot Threaten Judges With Corruption Allegations To Force Favourable Orders: Bombay High Court Holds Lawyers Guilty Of Criminal Contempt Co-Sharer Cannot Transfer Specific Portion Of Joint Land; Sale Operates Only As Transfer Of Undivided Share: Himachal Pradesh High Court Companies Act 2013 | Amount Due For Refund Post-Capital Reduction Does Not Qualify As Unclaimed Application Money For IEPF Transfer: Delhi High Court Seniority Cannot Be Claimed By Ad Hoc Or Temporary Employees Over Regularly Appointed Candidates: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs Deposit Of Entire Enhanced Compensation In Land Acquisition Appeals To Balance Financial Liability And Landowners' Rights Succession To Bhumidhari Rights By Hindu Women Governed By Personal Law As It Stands On Date Of Demise: Supreme Court Hindu Widow’s Limited Life Interest In Agricultural Land Becomes Absolute Upon Enactment Of HSA 1956, Governs Devolution Under Delhi Land Reforms Act: Supreme Court Bodily Injury Under Section 165 MV Act Covers Both Temporary And Permanent Injuries Irrespective Of Disability Certification: Bombay High Court Testimony Of An Injured Witness Is A 'Sterling Witness' With A Built-In Guarantee Of Presence At The Scene Of Crime: Allahabad High Court Scrutiny Committee Has Inherent Power To Direct Re-Examination Of Documents During Caste Verification, Does Not Need To Discard Entire Vigilance Report: Bombay High Court Tender Cancellation Orders Must Be Reasoned; Affidavit Cannot Supplement Missing Reasons: Allahabad High Court Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Allows Interim Orders Against Non-Signatories To Preserve Subject Matter: Delhi High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Parsi Matrimonial Suit Can Be Dismissed At Threshold If Jurisdictional Fact Of Marriage Solemnisation In India Is Absent: Bombay High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Is A Social Welfare Measure To Prevent Destitution, Not A Tool For Financial Enrichment: Allahabad High Court Locus Standi To Challenge Tenancy Orders | Person With Registered Agreement For Sale Is An 'Aggrieved Person' Under BTAL Act: Bombay High Court State Legislature Lacks Competence To Levy Cess On Agricultural Produce Brought For Manufacturing Without Sale: Uttarakhand High Court Senior Citizens Act | Maintenance Order Attains Finality And Remains Executable Against Legal Heirs Post-Death Of Respondent: Telangana High Court Civil Court Cannot Grant Injunction Against SARFAESI Proceedings Even If Suit Property Title Is Disputed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Co-Accused Confession Without Recovery Hit By Section 23 BSA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail In Robbery Case Section 28 Hindu Marriage Act | Appellate Court Can Set Aside Divorce Decree Upon Post-Decree Reconciliation Between Parties: Rajasthan High Court Failure To Collect Electronic Evidence Such As Call Detail Records In Offences Under Section 354 IPC Can Prove Fatal To Prosecution Case: Telangana High Court Mere Pendency Of Challenge To Sale Certificate Before DRT Does Not Bar Mutation Under OSS Rules: Orissa High Court Court May Impose Conditions On Minor’s Custody In Habeas Corpus Proceedings To Protect Best Interest Of Child: Madhya Pradesh High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected For Lack Of Specific Particulars Or Res Judicata At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Surprise Check Without Prior FIR Registration Casts Doubt On Foundational Facts; Uncorroborated Approver Evidence Tainted: Madras High Court Acquits Former Protector Of Emigrants Appointment Of Lambardar | Appellate Authority Remanding Matter Must Not Pre-Judge Merits Of Candidates: Punjab & Haryana High Court Disciplinary Proceedings | Subsequent Deposit Of Embezzled Amount Does Not Exonerate Employee Or Efface Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Order XXI Rule 37 CPC | Willful Evasion Of Decretal Debt Despite Having Means Justifies Arrest And Detention: Telangana High Court Claims For Recovery Of Stridhan Must Be Substantiated By Cogent Evidence, Not Merely Oral Assertion: Kerala High Court Concurrent Findings Of Fact Regarding Unproved Oral Family Settlement Cannot Be Re-Appreciated In Second Appeal: Punjab And Haryana High Court Limitation Act | Governmental Bureaucratic Delays Without Acceptable Explanation Cannot Be A Ground For Condoning Delay Under Section 5: Telangana High Court Constitutional Courts Should Refrain From Fixing Time-Bound Schedules For Disposal Of Cases In Lower Courts: Jharkhand High Court Industrial Tribunal Cannot Bypass Adjudication Of Domestic Enquiry Validity In Termination Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 106 Indian Evidence Act Cannot Shift Burden To Accused Unless Prosecution Establishes A Prima Facie Case: Allahabad High Court NDPS Act | Criminal Antecedents And Stage Of Investigation Are Decisive Factors For Grant Of Bail Under Section 480 BNSS: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cannot Dismember An Existing Factory: Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Notices To Acquire Private Land Under Section 299 MMC Act Order 21 Rule 32 CPC | Proof Of Violation By Way Of Expert Evidence Regarding Age Of Construction Is Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 34 Arbitration And Conciliation Act | Court Cannot Re-appreciate Evidence, But Award Lacking Reasoning And Basis Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court Section 175(3) & (4) BNSS | Magistrate Cannot Pass Mechanical Orders For FIR Registration Against Public Servants Without Complying With Statutory Safeguards: Allahabad High Court

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