The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on multiple petitions challenging the release of the film "2020 Delhi," which portrays the North-East Delhi riots of 2020. Justice Sachin Datta, after hearing arguments from all parties, stated, "I'll pass the order." The film's trailer, available on YouTube, has sparked significant legal debates concerning its potential impact on ongoing trials and the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections.
Background
"2020 Delhi" is a cinematic portrayal inspired by the events of the North-East Delhi riots that occurred in February 2020. The film aims to depict the sequence of events and the socio-political climate surrounding the riots. Its trailer, released on YouTube, claims to be inspired by true events, which has led to concerns about its potential influence on public perception and ongoing legal proceedings
Petitions Filed Against the Film's Release
Several petitions have been filed against the release of "2020 Delhi," each highlighting distinct concerns:
Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the riots, has filed a petition seeking a pre-screening of the movie by the Court and postponement of its release until the trial in the UAPA case related to the riots is concluded. He also seeks the removal of all promotional materials of the film until the trial's conclusion.
Five individuals, including riots accused Tasleem Ahmed, Akil Ahmed, and Sonu, as well as victims Sahil Parvez and Mohd. Sayeed Salmani, have jointly filed a petition. They seek the setting aside of the film's certificate and a restraint on its release until the criminal cases against them are resolved.
An independent candidate contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly polls, Umang, has filed a petition expressing concerns that the film and its trailer could influence the elections and compromise the principle of free and fair elections.
Legal Arguments Presented
During the court proceedings, various legal arguments were presented by the counsels representing the petitioners and the film's production house:
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Tasleem Ahmed and others, argued that the film's trailer violates Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act and the Contempt of Courts Act. He emphasized that the trailer references the film being inspired by true events of the 2020 riots, which could prejudice ongoing trials.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the film's production house, contended that the petition is premature since the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has not yet certified the film for public screening. He assured the court that there would be no public or social media screening of the movie until CBFC certification is obtained. Mehta also noted that the trailer includes a disclaimer stating that the movie is a fictional work inspired by true events and that cinematic liberties have been taken for dramatization.
Read Also - Delhi High Court Asks NIA to Respond to MP Engineer Rashid’s Interim Bail Plea in UAPA Case
Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing Sharjeel Imam, argued that the trailer prejudices Imam by portraying him as the main person behind the riots. She highlighted that the trailer features a man giving a speech with words identical to those attributed to Imam in the chargesheet of the UAPA case, which is pending adjudication. Farasat expressed concern that this portrayal could compromise Imam's right to a fair trial.
The counsel representing Umang argued that the trailer and the film could impact the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly polls, affecting the principle of free and fair elections.
Read Also - “Pe” Is Common in Payment Sector: Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Case Against BundlePe
Government's Stand on the Issue
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Union Government and CBFC, submitted that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He emphasized that for a takedown of content, the concerned social media entities where the content is published should be made parties to the petition, which was not done in this case. Sharma also informed the court that the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dealt with a similar challenge concerning the movie and disposed of the plea as premature.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Sachin Datta reserved the verdict, stating, "I'll pass the order." The court's decision is awaited, and it remains to be seen how it will balance the concerns of free expression in cinema with the rights of individuals involved in ongoing legal proceedings and the integrity of upcoming elections.
Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
.
