Hyderabad: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea seeking a ban on the film “Pushpa 2: The Rule” and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner.
The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Sararapu Srisailam, a social worker, challenging the certification granted to the film and seeking a direction for its non-release for public viewing or in theatres.
The petitioner alleged that the film would leave a bad impact on the public as it encourages corruption and violence. He also pointed out to a news report featured on a Telugu television channel wherein a person smuggled Rs 8 crores in pipes inspired by Pushpa.
The petitioner stated that he made several representations to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to stall the film but in vain.
While ‘Pushpa 1: The Rise’ is all about smuggling, corruption and murders, the new movie shows violence and gives a wrong message to the society.
Stating that smuggling, corruption and murder are celebrated in the film, the petitioner sought a ban on its release in theatres.
Deputy Solicitor-General Gadi Praveen Kumar, representing CBFC, argued that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matters as he was not personally aggrieved by the release of the movie.
It was contended that the writ was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limini. After hearing the parties at length, the judge noted that the petitioner without seeing the second part of the film presumes that the second part of the film will be a virtual reproduction of the first part and it was, thus, a mere speculation.
The judge also referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta v. Bhansali Production and Ors., wherein it was held that public interest litigation filed during the trailer is ill-conceived.
The judge also held that the petitioner did not have any locus to file writ petition and the balance of convenience was also against the petitioner.
The judge also noted the timeline of events to highlight the fact that the petitioner was aware of the potential dates for release of the movie from 2024 onwards and the fact of its postponement since April 2024.
The judge observed that the petitioner was seeking last minute interjections from the court to his advantage and presumably for armed-twisted tactics. “Given the absence of locus, the petitioner filing a speculated writ petition two days before release of the movie points to suspicious circumstances including unjust enrichment.” was observed by the judge.
The judge also highlighted that producers and directors of film will be irrevocably prejudiced if movie release is stopped at this juncture. The judge also referred to inter alia the legal provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the correspondences between the petitioner and CBFC.
Accordingly, the judge held that the petitioner cannot and does not have a continuing grievance since his representation was disposed of by CBFC as per the due process of law. The judge further held that the petitioner does not have any statutory right to continue an action against release of the movie.
Therefore, the judge held that there is nothing in the writ plea to merit and order and was liable to be dismissed with costs for taking a considerable amount of judicial time and effort on the part of respondents and their counsel.
Accordingly, the judge dismissed the writ plea with costs of Rs 1 lakh and directed the petitioner to pay the same to any organisation working towards protection of women from trafficking, within seven days.
