Mumbai:
Kangana Ranaut’s movie ‘Emergency’, at the centre of a massive row after Sikh organisations opposed its release, got no relief from the Bombay High Court today. The court said it cannot ask the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a certificate to the film’s makers as it would contradict a Madhya Pradesh High Court order.
Despite the setback, the actor and BJP MP claimed a win in court. “High court has blasted censor for illegally withholding the certificate of #emergency,” she said in a post on X.
The movie is co-produced by Ms Ranaut’s Manikarnika Films and Zee Studios. With the film earlier scheduled for a release on September 6, Zee Entertainment Enterprises approached the Bombay High Court, seeking a direction to Censor Board to issue the certificate that would clear the decks for the film’s release. The setback in Bombay High Court means that the movie is unlikely to release anytime soon.
READ:“Sensitive Content”: Government Sources On Kangana Ranaut’s ‘Emergency‘
The movie, based on the Emergency imposed by the Indira Gandhi government in 1975, ran into trouble after the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the apex religious body for Sikhs, alleged that it misrepresents Sikhs and sought a ban. Ms Ranaut later said the Censor Board had put on hold the certificate issued to her film. Sources in the government said some religious organisations have raised concerns about the film. “Religious sentiments cannot be hurt. There is some sensitive content in the movie,” a source said, adding that the Centre was seriously looking at the concerns.
READ: Kangana Ranaut’s ‘Emergency’ Stuck In Massive Row. What Are The Objections
Two Sikh organisations filed a Public Interest Litigation against the movie in Madhya Pradesh High Court. In its response, the Censor Board told the court that the movie had not been issued a certificate. The court then disposed of the petition.
Arguing the matter in court, Zee’s counsel, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, told the bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla that CBFC informed Manikarnika Films on August 8 that film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, subject to some modifications. On August 14, he said, the film’s makers submitted the film to CBFC with the modifications.
On August 29, Manikarnika received an email from CBFC stating that the CD is sealed and requested Kangana Ranaut to collect the certificate. But later, the certificate was not handed over, apparently following the opposition from Sikh communities.
Mr Dhond agued that CBFC is a censor body and “not an authority to look after the law and order situation”. “The maker of the film is a sitting MP. They gave her a censor certificate and could have simply said, look we have given the censor certificate and now if there is unrest, the State can take care of the same. They cannot say that now that there is an unrest, we will rethink the certification.”
Appearing for CBFC, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud said the certificate is not issued until it is signed by the Censor Board’s chairperson. He also pointed out that the Bombay High Court cannot ask CBFC to issue the certificate as it would be in breach of the Madhya Pradesh High Court order.
The court rejected CBFC’s contention that the certificate had not been issued yet.
“Once the makers comply with the modifications required by the CBFC and the CD with modifications is sealed successfully, we have to presume that the CBFC applied its mind and thereafter issued the email to Manikarnika that the CD of the film is successfully sealed,” the bench said.
The court, however, said that the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order was based on the Centre’s submission that the film isn’t certified yet and that it is under examination.
Denying relief to the film’s makers, the court said, “We are unable to pass this direction in light of the fact that the MP High Court has specifically directed the CBFC to consider the representations of the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat before certifying the film. If we were to direct the CBFC to issue the certificate, we would have breached the division bench’s directive.”
“Judicial Propriety demands such orders ought not be passed. We therefore, are unable to direct the CBFC to issue the certificate as sought by the petitioner. We however, do not dispose of the present petition. And we direct the CBFC to consider the objections, if any.”
When Mr Chandrachud said that the Board needs to consider other objections too and may take time to decide them, the court said, “No but you cannot keep it open ended. Movies are released on Fridays. There are crores and crores of money invested in this.” He replied, “CBFC cannot be held ransom”.
The bench asked CBFC to decide the representations before the next hearing on September 19.
