"Create a documentary on the Quran using false information and watch what happens: Allahabad High Court criticises Adipurush creators once more
On June 28, the Allahabad High Court picked up where it left off with the two petitions that had been filed to protest to certain sequences and language in Adipurush. Significantly, the court had held a hearing on this subject for an hour the day before, on June 27.
Once the hearing had resumed, the judge raised issues with the movie's depiction of religious figures. It was emphasised that, contrary to what the film's creators implied, nobody views the characters from the Ramayana with such prejudice. The judge asked the audience, "Does anyone imagine the religious characters to be in existence in the way they are presented in the movie? Do we picture our Gods to look like the characters' clothing from the film? They recite the Ramcharitmanas, a holy book, before they leave their
The court raised concerns about the film's depiction of religious figures once the hearing had resumed. It emphasised that, contrary to what the movie's creators suggested, no one views the characters from the Ramayana in this way. "Does anyone imagine the religious characters to be in existence in the way they are presented in the movie?" the court asked. Do we imagine our Gods to be dressed like the characters in the movie? You depict the Ramcharitmanas in such a pitiful way despite the fact that it is a revered text that people recite before leaving their homes?
CBFC was criticised by the court for approving the film.
The Court questioned the Film Certification Board and stated that by certifying such a film, it had made a mistake. In response, Dy. SGI asserted that the certification was carried out by a board with reasonable members.
"Aap keh rahe hain ki sanskar wale logon ne is movie ko certify kiya hai" (referring to the board members) "Jahan Ramayana ke baare mein aisa dikhaya gaya hai to wo log dhanya hai," the court said. You claim that since board members and other culturally aware individuals approved of this movie, in which the Ramayana is depicted in this way, those individuals are fortunate.
The Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) were both ordered by the court to provide separate affidavits in this case during the hearing.
People's feelings are harmed by these depictions.
The movie's portrayal of religious figures from the Ramayana may have offended people's feelings, the court admitted. It went on to say that there have been recent examples of Hindu deities being humorously represented in various films.
"If we would close our mouths today, you know what will happen," the court said. The number of these events is rising daily. In a humorous movie I watched, Lord Shankar was portrayed running beside his Trishul. These items will now be displayed, right? As films are successful, the filmmakers profit.
The court emphasised that there would have been serious repercussions if any documentary had inaccurately represented the Quran. It did, however, unequivocally state that sacred texts like the Bible and the Quran should not be touched and that no faith should be disparaged.
Additionally, the court reassured everyone that it is merely by coincidence that the issue at hand refers to the Ramayana and that the courts are open to all religions.
"Suppose you (the filmmakers) make even a brief documentary on the Quran, portraying incorrect things, then you will see what would happen," the court continued. I'll reiterate, though, that it has nothing to do with any one faith. The Ramayana is only mentioned in this case by coincidence; otherwise, the court is open to all religions.
The bench went on to say that it had gotten comments on the movie from a variety of people, and that it had found that it was intolerable and that many people had stopped watching it in the middle.
Few persons were unable to watch the movie in its entirety, the court ruled. A movie like that is inappropriate for everyone who respects Lord Rama, Lord Laxman, and Maa Sita.
Court's earlier observations
The case was heard for an hour on June 27 by a two-judge panel made up of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh.
The film's producers came under fire from the court on day one for their offensive portrayal of the character of Ramayana. The court expressed severe censure, asking: "Will a religion's tolerance be put to the test?"
"If we close our eyes on this issue too, because it is stated that the adherents of this religion are highly tolerant, would it also be put to test?," the bench noted.
The court continued, "Should the lovely person be silenced? Is that true? It is fortunate that it is about a religion whose adherents haven't caused any issues with law and order. We ought to be grateful. We saw in the news that some people had shown up at movie theatres (where the film was showing), but they just forced the theatre to close when they might have done more.
Do the persons who posted the disclaimer regard the countrymen and youth to be brainless, the court questioned sharply on the disclaimer problem. After displaying Lord Rama, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravana, and Lanka, you claim that the Ramayan is not true.
The court added that individuals read the Ramcharitmanas before leaving home and that the Ramayana serves as a role model for us. The court further argued that such matters ought to be ignored.
In addition, the court appointed Manoj Muntashir Shukla, a writer of movie dialogue, as a petitioner in the case and mandated that a notice be sent to him.
In the upcoming days, the Court will continue to hear the pleas.