Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Release of Film "Hamare Baarah" Over Alleged Misrepresentation of Quranic Verses Stayed By Bombay High Court and Upheld By Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has temporarily stayed the release of the film "Hamare Baarah" in response to a petition challenging its certification. The petition, filed by Azhar Basha Tamboli Ltd and others, alleges that the film misrepresents Quranic verses and portrays Muslim women in a derogatory manner, violating constitutional provisions and specific sections of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Indian Penal Code.

The petition was presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the certification of "Hamare Baarah" and prevent its public release. The petitioners argued that the film's content misinterprets a verse from the Quran (Aayat 223), depicting married Muslim women as lacking individual rights, which could incite communal discord and harm societal harmony.

The court, consisting of Justices N.R. Borkar and Kamal Khata, reviewed the arguments presented by both parties. Mr. Khandeparkar, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the film trailer lacked necessary disclaimers and included derogatory content towards the Islamic faith and married Muslim women​​ . He argued that the release of the film could hurt the sentiments of Muslims and provoke societal hatred.

In contrast, Mr. Sethna, representing the respondents, countered that the film had undergone all necessary certifications, including excisions and modifications as per the CBFC's guidelines​​ . He stated that the objections raised were baseless as the petitioners had not seen the final version of the film and were relying solely on an uncertified trailer.

The court found that a prima facie case was made by the petitioners. Justice Khata noted that the matter required thorough examination and could not be concluded summarily due to the absence of the film’s producers despite being served notices . The court decided that the film itself might need to be reviewed to address the conflicting claims properly.

"We find that prima facie a case is made out by the Petitioner. The issue of locus of the petitioner will have to be decided. However, we are of the view that the matter will have to be heard before any conclusion is drawn," stated the bench, highlighting the need for further examination of the petitioner's locus and the film's content .

The Bombay High Court's interim order restrains the release of "Hamare Baarah" until June 14, 2024, providing time for a detailed hearing and reply from the respondents. This judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in balancing freedom of expression with societal harmony and religious sentiments. The case is set to return to the regular court on June 10, 2024, for further deliberations .

 

Date of Decision: June 5, 2024

Azhar Basha Tamboli Ltd & Ors vs. Ravi S Gupta & Ors

Latest Legal News