Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Copy of PIL to ban "Ram Leela" movie



In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-       of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others                                                Respondents
INDEX
S No
Description of documents relied upon

Page No


From
To
1.
List of Dates and Events (separate)
Separate

2.
Interim Relief


3.
Memo of Writ Petition


4.
Annexure No 1
Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 26/09/2013 in the WP No 8872 of 2013 (M/B)


5.
Annexure No 2
A copy of these Guidelines dated 06/12/1991


6.
Annexure No 3
Order dated 08/06/2011 of this Hon’ble Court in Vinod Shanker Misra vs Salman Khan


7.
Annexure No 4
A copy of the newspaper advertisement of film


7.
Annexure No 5
A copy of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 09/10/2013


8.
Photo Identity of the petitioner


9.
Affidavit


10.
Vakalatnama



 Lucknow                                                                Asok Pande
Dated- 11/11/2013                                           Counsel for Petitioner                                                                                                    # 94154-65438





In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others                                                Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       
1.     26/09/2013                                   Order of this Hon’ble Court
                                                              of the film “Ram Lila”
2.     28/10/2013                                   Ram Leela granted U/A certificate
3.     15/11/2013                                   Date of release of the film
                                                             
The forthcoming film Ram Lila has taken a name from one of the most pious, sanctimonious, sacrosanct and revered event/festival of the Hinduism which has a tradition that is almost timeless. When the name Ram Lila comes, every person, Hindus in particular, thinks that a particular religious event is being talked of. But in this particular case, the producer and director of this alleged film Ram Lila are deliberately, intentionally and maliciously using this extremely pious word to make a film which they term “Goliyon ki Raas Lila”. The petitioners have seen the promotional video of this film and the newspaper advertisements of this film and found that there are all kinds of dirty and vulgar dialogues, dirty slogans, cheap acts where the lead actors are present in compromising positions and the film has nothing to do with the Holy tradition of Ram Leela and is clearly and opening insulting the religious beliefs of Hindus and is also outraging their religious beliefs in the most blatant manner.
That this goes against section 5B(1) of the Cinematographer Act and the associated laws, but despite this fact the Central Board of Film Certification gave a Certificate of exhibition to this film which is incorrect, improper and against the provisions of law. Hence this certificate needs to be summoned and quashed by this Hon’ble Court.
Hence this Writ Petition.


Lucknow                                                                 Asok Pande
Dated- 11/11/2013                                           Counsel for Petitioner                                                                                                    # 94154-65438










In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-       of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus

Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others                                                Respondents

Application for Interim Relief
The petitioners most humbly submit as under-
For the facts, reasons and substances stated in the accompanying Writ petition, duly submitted by an Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may very kindly be pleased to grant the following interim relief-
(a)             Issuing/ passing an order to the Respondents not to exhibit the film “Ram Leela” for the public and to direct the respondents to immediately stop all Promos, Advertisements and exhibition of this film,   till the disposal of this case
This Hon’ble court may further be pleased to any other order that it thinks necessary, in the interest of justice during the pendency of the petition.

Lucknow                                                                             Asok Pande
Dated-11/11/2013                                                        Counsel for Petitioners
                                                                                                # 94154-65438





In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-               of 2013 (M/B-Civil)







1.     Amitabh Thakur aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
2.     Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow--------           Petitioners
Versus
1.     Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Producer and Director of Hindi feature film ‘Ram Leela’
2.     Sri Kishore Lulla, co-producer of Hindi feature film ‘Ram Leela’
(The exact address of these respondents are not known, but they can be exactly traced through the respondent No 3)
3.     Central Board of Film Certification through its Chairperson, Bharat Bhavan, 91-E Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai
4.     Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-----------    Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:
The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:
1.     That by means of this petition, the petitioners are invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court vested with it through Article 226 of the Constitution to file this Public Interest Litigation (PIL, for short) to kindly summon the necessary records related of the forthcoming Hindi feature film “Ram Leela” being produced by Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Sri Kishore Lulla and being directed by Sri Bhansali and the certificate for public exhibition granted to it by the Central Board of Film Certification (Board, for short) under the Cinematographers Act 1952 (the Act, for short) and to accordingly cancel the certificate granted to this film  being completely against the various provisions of the Act, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (the Rules, for short) and the various Guidelines including the Guidelines dated 06/12/1991 (Guidelines, for short) issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB, for short), for deliberately and maliciously insulting and outraging the religious sentiments of followers of a particular religion, Hinduism, and for intentionally and deliberately using a name that has a very special, sanctimonious, sacrosanct and pious connotations and meaning in this religion but is being used deliberately and knowingly for a film that has nothing to do in any manner with this pious and religious episode but whose poster itself shows half-nude characters in rather offensive and compromising situations and uses the tag “Goliyon ki Raas leela” to define itself and as far as can be perceived from the various trailers of the film, it is using filthy language and dirty dialogues along with obscene scenes and compromising positions between the hero and the heroine of the film in a film that titles itself “Ram Leela”, the highly respected and revered Hindu religious set of events and presented scenes, facts, dialogues etc almost juxtaposed and opposed to what the Hindu events of Ram Leela stand for and symbolize and thus being highly destructive, improper, inappropriate and offensive against the sentiments of the followers of this religion as being against section 5B(1) of the Act, the various provisions of the Rules and the Guidelines as also in pursuance of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 08/06/2011 in Writ Petition No 5483 (M/B) of 2011.
The petitioners declares that Petition No 2, Dr Nutan Thakur had filed a Writ Petition No 8872 of 2012 (M/B) in the same matter which was heard and disposed of by this Hon’ble Court through its order dated 26/09/2013 saying that it is premature to adjudicate on this matter because the Board, as the statutory body has not granted the requisite certificate under the Act, so far. The petitioners declare that they have not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. It is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioner. As far as they know there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble High Court on the specific issue raised here. A copy of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 26/09/2013 in the WP No 8872 of 2013 (M/B) is being presented as Annexure No 1.
2.     That this is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being filed to immediately ban a Hindi film that is directly hurting/insulting and outraging the religious sentiments of the followers of Hinduism in a very big way and is accordingly having the potential of disturbing public order, peace and tranquility of the society.
3.     That the petitioners make it amply clear that their objective here is not to malign any particular individual or legal entity. The purpose is also not to harm the interests of any of the individuals related or involved with this Hindi film. The sole purpose of filing this PIL is to stop the harm/insult currently being perpetrated to Indian society, particularly towards the followers of Hinduism by this film which is using a name that is used to denote a very specific and sacrosanct religious event for a film which has nothing to do with this religious event, at the same time presently vulgar, indecent and inappropriate representations in the film while using Ram Leela as the title of their film, which definitely gives false notions, impression and thought about the context and content of the film, and whose actual content being quite different from the religious and sacramental events of Ram Leela, the religious sentiments of the Hindus in very large numbers is already getting hurt, injured and insulted. Hence, this is a matter that comes under the realm of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) because the matter is associated with a very large section of the society and the petitioners have no personal gain from this, except possibly some thanks and acknowledgement for this good work, which definitely does not come in the category of material gain and is definitely the driving force for so many good works and public interest activities.
4.     That this being a PIL, the petitioners would beg to humbly state that in pursuance of Rule 1, subrule (3A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, they shall be presenting all the relevant facts related with themselves, their particulars, their past works, their concerns and their credentials etc. Petitioner no 1 is an officer of the Indian Police Service, Uttar Pradesh Cadre, though he is filing this Writ Petition in his individual capacity as a concerned citizen of this Nation. He is also concerned with various social issues and has filed a large number of PILs on different issues, is striving for formation of a Unified Police Association for all policemen, right from the Constable to the DGP and is also involved with many Human Rights issues. Petitioner No 2 is a well-known social activist who wants to genuinely and positively contribute to the society in all possible ways. She works primarily in the field of transparency and accountability in governance, Human Rights and assisting in the enforcement of Rule of law. The petitioner has filed a very large number of important Public Interest Litigations.
The petitioners put it on oath that they are not filing this PIL nor have they filed any other PIL for any ulterior motive save the stated one nor have they received a single penny through any backdoor activity while filing these PILs. They state on oath that they have no personal or private interest in the matter and as far as they know there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble High Court on the specific issue raised here. They put it on oath that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to them or anyone associated with them or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or to the State.
5.     That coming to the matter of the PIL, in India, the basic law for public exhibition of a film is prescribed in the Cinematography Act 1952 (the Act).  The authority competent to grant the certificate in India is the Central Board of Film Certification (the Board, for short) as described in Section 3 (1)-“For the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called the Board of Film Certification.”
6.     That section 4 is  as regards the examination of films by the Board which after such procedure might sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition or sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults, or sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film; or refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition
7.     That section 5-A deals with the Certification of films by the Censor Board after examining a film or having it examined in the prescribed manner
8.     That possibly the most important section in the Act is section 5B, “Principles for guidance in certifying-(1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.”
9.     That in pursuance of the power given under section 8 of the Act, the Central Government framed the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (the Rules, for short)
10.                       That Rule 21 of these Rules is regarding Application for examination of films which says that- “(1) Every application to certify a film for public exhibition shall be made in writing in Form I or Form IA or Form II or Form IIA, as the case may be, set out in Schedule II according as the film is produced in or imported into India. (2) The application shall be addressed to the Board and delivered to the Regional Officer concerned as per Schedule I”
11.                       That Rule 22 regarding “Examining committee” says- (1) On receipt of an application under rule 21, the Regional Officer shall appoint an Examining Committee to examine the film. The examination shall be made at the cost of the applicant on such date, at such place and at such time as the Regional Officer may determine.  (2) The Examining Committee shall consist of,- (a) in the case of a short film, a member of the advisory panel and an examining officer either of whom shall be a woman; and (b) in the case of a long film, four members of the advisory panel and an examining officer of whom two persons shall be women
12.                       That as per Rule 22(8) of these Rules-“The Examining Committee shall examine the film having regard to the principles for guidance in certifying films specified in section 5B(1) and the guidelines issued by government under section 5B(2)” while as per Rule 22(13)- “It shall be the personal responsibility of the examining officer to examine whether each and every guideline issued by government has been followed and to bring any lapse or deviation to the notice of the Chairman.”
13.                       That as per Rule 23 of the Rules- “Certification- On receipt of the record referred to in sub-rule (12) of rule 22, the Chairman, unless the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 24 are attracted, direct the Regional Officer concerned to take further action on behalf of the Board in conformity with the recommendation of the Examining Committee either unanimous or by majority”
14.                       That Rule 24 is as regards Revising Committee to which the Chairman of the Board on receipt of the record referred to in rule 22 of his own motion or on the request of the applicant, refer the film which shall examine the film at the applicant's expense and the matter as regards certification is accordingly decided.
15.                       That as stated earlier in Section 5B(1), the Government may issue “such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition”. These directions, commonly understood as a Guidelines, have been issued by the Government and have also been amended from time to time, keeping in mind the changes in social outlook from time to time and also the kind of films being made.
16.                       That the Guidelines presenting forming the basis of decision-making by the Board (as per the Board’s own website) as regards grant of certificate are the one issued by the MIB on 06/12/1991. A copy of these Guidelines is being attached as Annexure No 2.
17.                       That as stated at point 1.1 of these Guidelines-  The objectives of film certification will be to ensure that –the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society;  
18.                       Those important and relevant instructions given at Point 2 of these Guidelines state- “In pursuance of the above objectives, the Board of Film Certification shall ensure that    xii)      Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented;   xvii) Public order is not endangered;    xviii)Visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of individuals, or contempt of court are not presented”
19.                       That similarly at Point 3 of these Guidelines is said- “The Board of Film Certification shall also ensure that the film   i)   Is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact; and ii)  Is examined in the light of the period depicted in the films and the contemporary standards of the country and the people to which the film relates provided that the film does not deprave the morality of the audience.
20.                       That equally importantly, Point 6 of these Guidelines clearly states-“The Board shall scrutinize the titles of the films carefully and ensure that they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or violative of any of the above-mentioned guidelines.”
21.                       That thus it can be seen that there is a proper procedure and law prescribed for public exhibition of films in India as described above.
22.                       That thus it is obvious that no public exhibition of any film might be done before the Board has granted the certificate in a manner as prescribed above, particularly in the light of section 5(B) of the Act along with the Rules and the above Guidelines.
23.                       That in addition there is also the order dated 08/06/2011 of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vinod Shanker Misra vs Salman Khan, Writ Petition No. 5483 (M/B) of 2011 which directed the Board to reconsider grant of certificate to a song using the word Raas Leela in the Hindi feature film 'Ready' placed in almost identical situations, though unfortunately and sadly the same was not taken up by the Board. A copy of this order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 08/06/2011 is being attached as Annexure No 3.
24.                       That in this Writ Petition No 5483 of 2011 (M/B), the Hon’ble High Court had specifically said-“ 4.While framing the questions, the Division Bench (supra) had taken note of the fact that there is difference in the Indian civilization vis-a-vis Western civilization so far as the life style is concerned. Indian civilization regulates its conduct in such a manner which does not permit the use of derogative words against the religion and religious sentiments of its people. Section 5 (B) of the Cinematography Act, 1952 provides guidelines which prima facie seems to be applicable in the present case. Why the Central Board of Film Certification has failed to take appropriate decision while clearing the film, is a matter of deep concern before this Court. In Chapter XV, Section 295 and 295-A of Indian Penal Code, provide that no person has got right to act deliberately or maliciously intending to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting religion or religious sentiments. Needless to say that under Hindu religion, Rass Lila co-relate with Lord Krishna. Prima facie, the word, cannot be used in derogative sense” and had accordingly ordered-“9.As an interim measure, the respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the grant of certificate along with the song having title, "Ready" with the song, "Ishq Ke Naam Par Karte Sabhi Ab Rass Lila Hain, Hum Karen to Kahte Hai Character Dhila Hai", within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case no decision is taken, this Court may consider the prayer of the petitioners with regard to interim relief.”
25.                       That whatever facts are to be considered and discussed in this PIL are to be discussed in the light of the above-mentioned provisions of law and facts.
26.                       That a Hindi film by the name of ‘Ram Leela’ is going to be released on 15/11/2013. As per the petitioners’ information, the film has already been granted a U/A Certificate by the Board on 28/10/2013 or around under the provisions of the Act and the accompanied laws.
27.                       That this certificate is clearly against the above-mentioned mandate of law, as shall be explained in details in the subsequent Paras, and is hence improper and bad in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed immediately.
28.                       That to begin with, as per the official theatrical trailer of this film at website https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StphRCLkx6Q, the film, using a caption “From a town like no one else” shows lots of guns and firing. It uses dirty dialogues like-“ए, मूतमारी के, अन्दर क्या मूत रहा है, तेर बाप की मूतारी है” and “जब्बारियों का नया डॉन”. It shows a large number of scenes of the lead actors Sri Ranveer Singh and Ms Deepika Padukone where they stand in rather intimate positions, kissing each other in compromising positions and in other improper conditions. They also use words and dialogues which are definitely indecent. One caption used in the trailer calls the film-“Goliyon ki Raasleela.”
29.                       That what is shown in the official trailer on Internet is also being shown everywhere on the TV screens through various Promos and small trailers being relayed day in and day out.
30.                       That the poster of this film is also being printed in many newspapers in various ways, where again the nudity and improper positioning of the main protagonists of the film is quite apparent, while the words “Goliyon ki Raasleela” is also written. A copy of a newspaper advertisement related with this film is being attached as Annexure No 4.
31.                       That despite all these contents being there in the film, the film has been titled “Ram-Leela” by respondents No 1 and 2
32.                       That thus here there has been gross error on the part of the Board, where it seems to be deliberately overlooking the provisions of law as given under section 5(B) of the Act, Rule 22(8) of the Rules and the Guidelines dated 06/12/1991 for reasons best known to them.
33.                       That there can be no denial to the fact that these respondents No 1 and 2 have presented a movie with the name Ram Leela in a rather vulgar, rude, offensive, crude and lecherous manner. Yet, it is not the content of the movie that is the subject matter of this PIL. If the same content was there with any other name, this PIL would never have been filed. It is the use of the word Ram Leela along with these vulgar, rude, offensive, crude and lecherous contents that is the matter of dispute and which makes the matter serious and improper and is being seriously questioned and severely contested in the larger public interest.
34.                       That the direct effect of this use of the title “Ras Leela” is that it clearly insults the religious sentiments of the Hindus. There is also a great possibility of people misunderstanding the title. Thus while there would be many who would think that the movie has to do with Ram Leela, it is actually a love story, presented in a vulgar manner, where main characters kiss each other, move in semi-nude manner and so many women/girls move in similar manners, improper and dirty dialogues are used and guns are fired in a horrendous manner.
35.                       That thus a very large number of Hindus are already getting adversely affected/insulted by the wrongful title of this movie because Ramleela (literally 'Rama’s leela or play') is a dramatic folk re-enactment of the life of Lord Ram, ending up in ten-day battle between Lord Ram and Ravan, as described in the Hindu religious epic, the Ramayana.  A tradition that originates from the Indian subcontinent, the play is staged annually often over ten or more successive nights, during the auspicious period of 'Sharad Navratras', which marks the commencement of the Autumn festive period, starting with the Dussehra festival. Usually the performances are timed to culminate on the festival of Vijayadashami day, that commemorates the victory of Lord Ram over demon king Ravana, when the actors are taken out in a procession through the city, leading up to a mela ground or town square, where the enactment of the final battle takes place, before giant effigies of Ravana, his brother Kumbhakaran and son Meghanath are set fire, and coronation or abhisheka of Rama at Ayodhya takes place, marking the culmination of festivities and restoration of the divine order.
36.                       That as is well known, Lord Rama is the 7th incarnation of Lord Vishnu and central figure of the Holy Ramayana. The Ramayana is based on the life, times and values of Lord Rama. Lord Rama is called the Maryada Purushottam or 'The best among the dignified'. The story of Lord Rama and his comrades is so popular in India that it has actually amalgamated the psyche of the Indian mainstream irrespective of their religion. The very story of Ramayana injects ethics to the Indian mainstream.
37.                       That most Ramleelas in North India are based on the 16th century Avadhi version of Ramayana, Ramcharitmanas, written by Gosvami Tulsidas entirely in verse, thus used as dialogues in most traditional versions, where open-air productions are staged by local Ramlila committees, 'Samitis', and funded entirely by the local population, the audience.
38.                       That Ramleela has received considerable global attention, especially due to its diverse representation throughout the globe, especially amongst the Indian diaspora community, and regions where Hinduism has spread over the centuries, like Africa and several South East Asian countries. UNESCO proclaimed the tradition of Ramleela a Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity in 2005. Subsequently, Govt. of India and IGNCA produced a two-hour documentary, titled "Ramleela - The traditional performance of Ramayana" for UNESCO, on 'Ramnagar Ramleela', and Ramleela traditions of Avadh, Braj and Madhubani, and that of Ayodhya, which assimilates elements of all three.
39.                       That it is this Ram Leela whose name the respondents No 1 and 2 have used for their film to present a completely different set of activities, which have nothing to do with Lord Rama, his life and wisdom and is trying to sell something else in the name of Ram Leela and hence a very large number of Hindus are getting outraged by this use of the word ‘Ram Leela” for such a movie.
40.                       That in the often quoted verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P (1957 AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860), it was stated-“In the next place s. 295A does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any deliberate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of that class do not come within the section. It only Punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class. The calculated tendency of this aggravated form of insult is clearly to disrupt the public order and the section, which penalises such activities, is well within the protection of cl. (2) of Art. 19 as being a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a).”
41.                       That again in Baba Khalil Ahamad vs State  (AIR 1960 All 715, 1960 CriLJ 1528), this Hon’ble Court said- “The main ingredient of Section 295A I.P.C. is insult to religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizens of India. If a person has great regard for Muawiya as a religious leader, he is likely to be offended if Muawiya is described as a man of mean character. Those persons, who describe themselves as Sunnis and have great regard for Muawiya, can well be described as a class of citi-eens of India. So the books written by the applicant constitute insult to the religious beliefs of a class of citizens of India.” And- “25. We have seen that the applicant's writing is of such a nature that the admirers of Muawiya are bound to be offended. It was pointed out that, the expression used in Section 298, I.P.C. is ''wounding religious feelings", while the expression used in Section 295-A, I.P.C. is "outraging religious fee-lings". The word 'outrage' is somewhat stronger than the word 'wound'. But on examining the language used by the applicant in the six books, I find that the writing is likely to outrage religious feelings of the admirers of Muawiya. It must be held that, the applicant intended to outrage the religious feelings of that class of citizens, who have great regard for Muawiya.”
42.                       That the act of Sri Bhansali and the respondent No 2 to name their film Ram Leela and show things which are completely far away from what Ram Leela stands for and showing dirty dialogues, filthy scenes and obscenities which using the title Ram Leela for the film comes under the category of Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict in Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P (supra) that the insults and attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of Hindus here is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class and has not been offered unwittingly or carelessly because the name was not given quite suddenly in a day or two but must have been a very thought-after and intentional decision and not a casual, unwitting or careless one, despite knowing all the facts related with the relevance, importance and sacrosanct thoughts associated with the titles Ram Leela and Raas Leela. Hence, it equally comes under the purview of Baba Khalil Ahamad vs State  (supra), because what hold true for Muawiya whom people had regard as a religious leader, it hold true no less strongly for Ram Leela, the holy acts of Lord Rama, as it is perceived in the eyes of millions of Hindus and Raas Leela, the holy enactments of Lord Krishna. Hence, using such names, without any purpose, without any need, without any reference or relevance, just to provoke the sentiments, just to hurt, humiliate the religious beliefs and just to outrage the religious feelings, in such a blatant manner that does clearly come under the categories defined in the above rulings.
43.                       That what is more to be noted is that all these facts are so apparent that they are visible on the face of it and should have been noted by the Examining committee and the Board, on the face of it, particularly after the verdict of this Hon’ble Court in Vinod Shankar Mishra vs Salman Khan, but was sadly ignored in an unpleasant and unwarranted manner.
44.                       That as stated earlier, section 5B(1) of the Act asks for denying certificate by Respondent No 3 to a film or any part of it if it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. As stated in details in above Para, here the use of name Ram Leela for a film which has nothing to do with such a sanctimonious and pious religious event related with Hindu religion and where entirely different things against the ethics, morality, lessons, ethos, values, thinking, faith and respect of Ram Leela, clearly involves defamation of an entire religion and its followers and also is also actually commission of an offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) other than having the huge potential to incite subsequent commission of violent incidences because a section of Hindus is actually agitated by such a name that might lead to commission of cognizable offences.
45.                       That these facts are also being stated at various levels as well. For instance, in an article titled “Don’t exploit Ramlila tradition for money Mr Bhansali” by Sri Priyadarshi Dutta dated 19/09/2013 says-“What booted Sanjay Leela Bhansali to title his upcoming film as Ramleela? The title is provocative enough especially when read with the tagline –‘Goliyon Ki Rasleela’ (roulette of bullets). Both Ramleela and Rasleela enjoy religious and cultural sanctity in India. Bhansali is ill-advised in fiddling with them even through innuendos. The film is said to be based on Shakespeare’s play Romeo & Juliet – a world apart from the venerable tradition of Ramlila in northern India. The title is derived from the conjunction of the name of the hero and heroine Ram (Ranveer) and Leela (Deepika). Bhansali perhaps hoped to take wind out of public outrage by citing this simple fact. But does that really allay the provocation or turn frowns into smiles? In posters, the title Ramleela is boldly scripted on equally ‘bold’ postures of ‘Ram’ and ‘Leela’ in amorous embrace. The viewing effect is geared to stir controversy aimed at box office profits.”
46.                       That it also says-“Ramlila, the 10-day traditional play based on the life of Ram is an institution by itself. Ramlila, known to have been instituted by Goswami Tulsidas in 1574, has animated the cultural life of northern India for ages. There are numerous grounds in northern India called ‘Ramlila Maidan’ simply because Ramlila is enacted there every year.”
47.                       That what the petitioners wanted to say has been said in this article, which states the petitioner’s thoughts on this matter.
48.                       That the petitioners would be honest to present before this Hon’ble Court the fact that almost the same question was raised before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by the petitioner Rashttravadi Shiv Sena in Unknown vs Sanjay Leela Bhansali (W.P.(C) 6384/2013) which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed through its order dated 09/10/2013, along with imposition of a cost of Rs. 50,000. Yet, the petitioners have dared to file this petition because they strongly feel that there were many issues that could not be taken up in that particular Writ Petition and where possibly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also erred in comprehending the concept of religion and religious feelings in its entirety along with the sensitivity and inner fervor associated with this phenomenon, may be because the petition did not bring up all the facts and perspective before the Hon’ble Court to be in a position to take up the matter in its entirety, which the petitioners would make their best efforts to bring forth for the kind notice of this Hon’ble Court, so as to assist it in arriving at justice for a very large section of people, who would be truly thankful to this Hon’ble Court for having acted as their real savior when the concerned statutory authority (the Board) failed to live up to its expectation and to perform its duty to the desired extent as per the provisions of law. Hence the petitioners find it important to present the relevant facts of this order and to present the points of further elucidations, which would make it quite apparent that if all the facts were presented before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, its order might have been completely different from what it gave on 09/10/2013.  A copy of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 09/10/2013 is being attached as Annexure No 5.
49.                       That as per the order- “This Court is of the opinion that no organization leave alone the petitioner can claim to be sole proprietor of names of Hindu Gods. Hinduism is a religion which promotes tolerance and catholicity of outlook. One of us in Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra & Anr .Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No.1188/2009, decided on 2nd January, 2013, has observed that freedom of expression is of inestimable value in a democratic society based on the rule of law. Our written Constitution guarantees not only freedom of speech but also freedom after speech. Though censorship of films constituting prior restraint is justified under the Indian Constitution, yet the censors have to make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom, thereby leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. Consequently, the film being a piece of art, is entitled to protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”
50.                       That the Hon’ble Delhi High Court accordingly ordered-“Consequently, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.”
51.                       That putting a cost on any PIL or dismissing it is the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Court before which the PIL has been presented and hence, with due regards to the honour, dignity and utmost respect to this Hon’ble Court and all the Higher sentinels of Justice, every petitioner who is pursuing public causes has to bear in mind that whatever he is presenting to the best of his abilities, thoughts and capabilities is going to be subjected to an assessment where the thought-process, opinions and other personal/subjective impressions of the Hon’ble Judges is also going to be an important factor in the final outcome of the PIL and hence it is humbly submitted that every person who ventures to come in the open to present a public cause has to be ready to face any consequences and every kind of response, which is not within his control, including a cost in a PIL, which he needs to take as the natural hazards of getting associated with a cause that he/she feels is a public cause of larger consequences.
52.                       That as far as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order that that no organization can claim to be sole proprietor of names of Hindu Gods is concerned, there can be no point of disagreement to it. Yes, it is true that names of Hindu Gods and Hindu religious events are not like trade-marks or copyrights or patents which can be used only by a handful of persons. These names are there in larger public realm and are used by all kinds of people for many purposes. So, we find Shyam Hotel, Shankar Restaurant, Brahma Lodge, Krishna Bus service and so on and so forth. This is true not only for Hinduism but for every other religion. If the petitioners remember correctly, we possibly also find entities like Madina Hotel, Mecca Bus Service, Mariyam Lodge etc and Mary Hospital, Joseph School etc. But, and herein lies the Big BUT, if the same sacrosanct, sacramental, religious, holy, respected, revered names are used for things like Toilets, Brothels, Dens, Gang names, Heroine joints, Undergarments, Condoms and such other items which are generally regarded in negative shades or as slightly improper items or have downbeat image and perception in Human minds, then the followers of that particular religion do start feeling shifty, uncomfortable, hurt, irritated, pissed, humiliated, insulted and even outraged.
53.                       That why a person who is a follower of a particular religion feels bad, feels angry and gets violent when his religious Texts are ill-treated, his religious places are desecrated, his revered saints and Gods are humiliated and belittled or his Holy objects are improperly presented is not a subject matter of this PIL. Yes, of the two petitioners of this PIL, to petitioner No 1, who is himself almost an atheist or at least an agnostic, such strong reactions on religious matters initially came as a huge surprise and he often failed to appreciate what harm happens to a Hindu who finds a cow being slaughtered or to a Muslim who finds a pig anywhere near his place of holy worship or to a Christian who finds his Holy Bible being torn by others or a Sikh who finds any person calling himself a Guru after Guru Govind Singh. But later he realized that whatever might be his personal sentiments and thoughts, the fact remains that religion plays an extremely important role in framing and governing the psyche of the vast majority of human beings. The truth is that the vast majority of human beings are governed by religion and religious feelings. The reality is that religion, religious thoughts, religious sentiments, attachments to religious Gods and Goddess, attunement to religious events etc do actually exist and they are probably much more stronger than any other human feeling. In sum, the role and importance of religion in human life and its impact, impression and hold over Human mind, even in today’s scientific society cannot be underrated or negated.
54.                       That in the same vein, the petitioners also often feel bewildered at the various extremely turbulent, violent and ruinous riots that place between Hindu and Muslims, between Shias and Sunnis between Protestants and Catholics and so on. But again we see everyday around us people becoming beasts and devils in the name of religion and thousands of wars have been fought in the name of religion since time immemorial, so that religion and the hold of religious sentiments has been there since the birth of religion, which possibly coincides with the birth of human civilization.
55.                       That hence whether the petitioner No 1, an atheist or petitioner No 2, a moderate Hindu personally like it or not, the fact remains that improper presentation of religious names, even of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, becomes a matter of great contention and heated activities where the followers of that religion, do start making a big issue of even the Hindu names.
56.                       That again with due regards to the wisdom of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it kindly needs to be understood that while it does look nice and elegant to say that “Hinduism is a religion which promotes tolerance and catholicity of outlook” but a Gujarat or a Muzaffarnagar does not happen only through one-sided actions. It kindly needs to be appreciated that if there were violent clashes in Moradabad or Meerut or Mumbai, it was not the one-sided act of followers of one particular religion. The other party, whom the Hon’ble Delhi High Court kindly mentions as being followers of “a religion which promotes tolerance and catholicity of outlook”  must have been as active a player as the other party because as the famous Hindi saying goes- “ताली एक हाथ से नहीं बजती.”
57.                       That the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rightly says that freedom of expression is of inestimable value in a democratic society based on the rule of law, but it kindly also needs to be appreciated and understood that there is always a difference between what should be and what is. As a principle and as an ideology, as something being sought and strived for, it is true that we all shall be tolerant, we shall be open to criticism, we all shall take things in a lighter vein and we shall ignore small things. “सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः, सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः, सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु, ना कश्चित् दुःख भाग भवेत्” looks so pleasant and elegant and is also quite mesmerizing. But at the same time, it kindly needs to be noted that on the same land which speaks the above voice, a quarter of the population was once deprived of even its basic rights and branded, banished and ostracized as “Untouchables” (शुद्र) and where the customs of Sati prevailed. Among the followers of the same religion, Bride burning happens even today, that too for such a thing like dowry.
58.                       That thus the point that needs to be understood is that while all the niceties and nice sounding words have their own importance and relevance, the hard reality of life is that religion does play an important role and religious sentiments are indeed extremely emotive issue, even among Hindus and thus while Hinduism might be a religion of tolerance, not every follower of this religion is an exact follower of all its tenets in actual practice and has many a times been seen getting badly ruffled, insulted and humiliated in the name of religion.
59.                       That to unnecessary and unwarrantedly play with religious emotions is not only unethical, hazardous and improper, it is also criminal. This is the reason why way back in 1860, the framers of Penal Law in India thought it prudent and necessary to introduce such sections of law as section 295, 295A, section 505 etc of IPC here hurting religious feelings, playing with religious sentiments, denigrating religious emotions and believes have been treated as being serious offences where very huge penal provisions have been prescribed.
60.                       That in short, while theoretically it is true that being open-hearted and open-minded as regards religious feelings shall be there, but here the reality is different from the imaginations and purer intent.
61.                       That, again as explained above, the position here is no different in Hinduism than in any other religion and to self-presume and to make different assumptions has its definite dangerous portents, other than being definitely incorrect.
62.                       That yes it is true that the stretch and limits of religious thoughts and religious tolerance do vary from religion to religion, depending on so many factors, including the basics of religious thoughts, religious preaching etc, and in this way Hinduism somehow is almost universally recognized as being more tolerant than many other religions, particularly as regards accepting adverse comments against its Holy scriptures, its religious Gods, religious thoughts etc, possibly because it is not a religion based on a particular “Holy Book” and thus has a very large number of shades, colours, textures and forms.
63.                       That but it does not mean that Hinduism and followers of this religion never react to any alleged insult, improper treatment, baseless allegations, playing with its sentiments etc, come what may. There would be hundreds of examples when the followers of Hinduism reacted extremely violently to alleged insult to their religion and religious entities.
64.                       That again, other than violent reactions that came to surface, there would be many more occasions when the followers of this religion felt discontented, got agitated, got badly hurt and perturbed, even insulted and outraged and a very definite stage of simmering, just short of violent reactions actually happened.
65.                       That hence let us not close our eyes to the hard facts and realities and let us be pragmatic and realistic to the actual facts and hence be sensitive to the reality of the Hindus being sensitive to their religious thoughts.
66.                       That accordingly let us give due importance to the religious feelings and sentiments of followers of Hindu religion as is given to the followers of others, often regarded as being more sensitive to their religion and more violent and open in their reaction.
67.                       That again let the factor that the followers of Hinduism are allegedly more tolerant as regards their religion not be used against the followers of this religion and let us not improperly start becoming saintly and philosophical while dealing with the issues, problems and sentiments related with Hindus, just because they are allegedly “more tolerant”.
68.                       That it can be easily understood that such a thought and such tendency in administrative and politico-social thinking have often been said to be responsible for bringing forth a militant wing in Hinduism itself which is later lamented and decried.
69.                       That hence let us be equally sensitive and/or insensitive to all religions, their religious thoughts and their religious sentiments, in the larger public interest and for long-term harmony.
70.                       That it is only this evenness and equanimity in outlook and concern towards all religions that is going to maintain the religious equilibrium of the Nation, otherwise over the period a feeling of discontent might creep in the followers of this religion that in the name of being “more tolerant” all their genuine religious sentiments are being completely ignored, which would be truly dangerous for the entire nation.
71.                       That as far as the use of the word “Ram Leela’ for a film that is nothing remotely related with this sacred and sacramental Hindu event is concerned, it does not need the intelligence of a genius to understand that for the Hindus to whom “Ram Leela’ has a very definite connotation, has a hugely sacramental conception, has a holy realm, has a revered perception and has an extremely sacrosanct imagination, where the mere mention of this phrase brings forth the thought of the religious events related with Lord Rama and the members associated with the tale of the Holy Ramayana, has been presented by Sri Bhansali not as something related with the scripture and the holy, revered tale but with a semi-naked, lewd, half-clad, lecherous love story of two youth, where the dialogues and speeches are full of dirty and filthy words and where despite using the name “Ram Leela”, the producer and director have shown the least respect for these religious events and have openly presented something extremely contrary to the conception and perception of “Ram Leela” which comes under the category of intentionally and maliciously insulting a religion and outraging the religious feelings of its followers.  
72.                       That in Act II, Scene I of William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet argues by saying “What's in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet;” in reference to Romeo's house, Montague that the names of things do not matter. Yes, it could have been true to a lover like Romeo or Juliet, but to the vast majority of the people of this world, names and symbols do also matter.
73.                       That if names and symbols were irrelevant, the whole law and legal literature related with Trademarks in particular as also Copyrights and patents would not have existed. The same filmmakers who fight so strongly for intellectual freedom and creative independence fight so bitterly and fiercely when it comes to names. There would be hundreds of examples when a producer fought up to the Hon’ble Apex Court to retain a name. To quote from a latest example, The Times of India report “Bollywood producers fight over film titles” by Sri Hiren Kotwani, dated 11/04/2013 talks of-“The latest title feud to come to light is between Ekta Kapoor-Vikramaditya Motwane and Vivek Kumar over Lootera”. It also discusses-“Motwane's partner Anurag Kashyap recently had a title tattle with Kabir Sadanand over the title Ugly” and “Dibakar Banerjee, who's doing three films with Aditya Chopra will feud with producer Abhijeet Chawate over Titli, the title for the first of those films. Chawate had registered the title with IMPPA last year.” Another report “Producers fight over a film on Bhanwari Devi” on IBN Live says-“Two producers have engaged themselves in a war of words. Both are doing a film on Bhanwari Devi, a victim of sexual assault and murder from Rajasthan, Nikhil Tonk and Ranjeet Sharma are now in a race to be credited as the original maker. Sadhika Randhawa has already started shooting for the film while Mallika Sherawat is under consideration. Tonk, who has registered the title for his film says, "If someone else tries to race ahead by making a smaller project, then I'm not going to let anyone derail my project.” Even for a name related with Osama Bin Laden, these film producers and directors don’t hesitate to fight. As per a website report, “Ghanaian producers fight over ‘Osama bin Laden’ movie title”- “Not too long after Obama had announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, two movie producers in Ghana’s culturally suave city of Kumasi, home to the twi movie industry, are already fighting over who will be the first to produce a commercial movie with the title Osama bin Laden. Information coming from the burgeoning movie industry in Kumasi indicates that two movie producers are fighting over the movie title “Osama Bin Laden”- (part one and two).” This happens not only in India and the third world. As regards the so-called advanced western nations, a Guardian report dated 02/07/2013 by Mr Ben Child titled “Weinstein Company and Warners battle over rights to title The Butler-Lee Daniels' Oscar-tipped historical drama faces copyright challenge over its name” is only about the fight over name. If names don’t count and are so irrelevant, why this fight and why all these legal battles? Why don’t these “creative” and “artistic” producers and directors allow everyone else to use the same name and film titles? Why do they become extremely stingy, miserly and parsimonious when it comes to sharing names with other “creative” filmmakers?
74.                       That if names are irrelevant, why don’t the big business houses allow everyone to use their company names, trademarks, product names and so on? Why don’t every economic entrepreneurs show generosity for everyone to use and utilize their products names? The importance of symbols, emblems and names can be gauged from the fact that even the Indian Parliament has enacted the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 which is “An Act to prevent the improper use of certain emblems and names for professional and commercial purposes”.  
75.                       That the simple reason to all the above facts is that names do matter and names have their own importance. Wars- legal and actual, have been waged for names and in the name of names. Hence just to propagate this theory only for the followers of a particular religion, when it comes to one of their extremely sacrosanct names might even look like some kind of hypocrisy and double-standard, other than being extremely insensitive to their sentiments, their emotions and their reverence.
76.                       That the petitioner No 1 remembers a personal incidence when posted at Deoria district way back in 1999-2000, he had gone to Lar township where some dispute had emerged over a political matter. There a political leader came to him, extremely agitated and boiling. His only point of rage was that the opponents had used the name of the National President of his political party disrespectfully, along with certain abusive words. The petitioner No 1 still remembers the words of this person-“साहब, हम अपने नेता का अपमान बर्दाश्त नहीं कर सकते.”
77.                       That one can understand that if these mortal political entities can generate so much heat and passion in their followers, how much heat any real or alleged disrespect for the religion, the religious entities, the religious events, the religious mores and customs actually generates, more so for such the followers of such established religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zionism etc which have now thousands of years of history, culture and ethos.
78.                       That Yahudi (Meaning 'Jew'), a 1958 Bollywood film directed by the legendary film director Sri Bimal Roy, which starred great actors like Sri Dilip Kumar and Ms Meena Kumari  had a famous dialogue- “तुम्हारा खून-खून और मेरा खून पानी” by Sri Sohrab Modi. It kindly needs to be remembered that the feelings and sentiments of every human beings, every human group and every religious groups are generally alike and hence what stands true for the Film producers (“the creative people”) and the business-houses stands equally true for the followers of almost every religious group,  
79.                       That it kindly must be kept in mind that as stated in the movie Yahudi, no person or social entity has less volatile blood than others and such assumptions, whenever made, as regards any individual or socio-political or religious groups, are abject misconception and wrong presumptions. Yes, Hinduism could be a relatively moderate religion but there it ends because this comparison can only be relative to any other religion, it cannot and shall be stretched to mean that followers of Hinduism are unconcerned about each and everything that happens to their religion, religious entities and religious customs. No such assumptions shall ever be made regarding any individual entity and/or any social group.
80.                       That sadly in the present case, the Board seems to have made the same mistake when it disregarded all these facts. To begin with, the petitioners are sure that the “Examining committee” formed under Rule 22 of the Rules, would not be so novice as not to know that the title Ram Leela signifies a specific Hindu event or custom. The members must be from India and must be having the basic knowledge and information about the significance, importance and positioning of Ram Leela among the Hindus and in the Indian cultural history. Hence the question naturally arises- Why did they fail in their duty assigned under Rule 22(13) of the Rules which says- “It shall be the personal responsibility of the examining officer to examine whether each and every guideline issued by government has been followed and to bring any lapse or deviation to the notice of the Chairman?”  Did they not know section 5B of the Act which says that the film or any part of it shall not be against public order, or shall not be likely to incite the commission of any offence? Did they not know of section 295A, IPC (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.-- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of  citizens of India,  by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to  three years, or with fine, or with both) and the fact that deliberately insulting any religious belief is a criminal offence which the film Ram Leela has all through been doing by unnecessarily, flagrantly and openly hurting and insulting the religious sentiments of followers of Hindu religion by associating this name with a film which is showing half-clad, semi-nude men and women in compromising positions and lecherous situations, mouthing dirty dialogues while Ram Leela is an extremely revered and holy Hindu religious custom and tradition? The question is also why did they not ensure the compliance of the Guidelines dated 06/12/1991 which says at Point 1 that-“The objectives of film certification will be to ensure that –the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society” and at Point 2(xii) that “Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented”? Similarly, did the examining committee not know the instruction at Point 6 that it shall scrutinize the titles of the films carefully and ensure that they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or violative of any of the above-mentioned guidelines?
81.                       That equally important is the fact that even if the Examining Committee missed these points, why did the Board miss and/or ignore them? Again, was the Board not in the knowledge of the order dated 08/06/2011 of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of Vinod Shanker Misra vs Salman Khan (supra) which had come very heavily against the Board’s decision as regards the song Raaa Leela? Was the Board not a party and hence privy to the orders dated 26/09/2013 of this Hon’ble Court in Dr Nutan Thakur vs Sanjay Leela Bhansali (supra) where this Hon’ble Court had reposed its full faith over the Board as the statutory authority to decide over grant of certification under the Act, stating that-“,The Court is of the considered opinion that at the time when the Central Board of Film Certification will examine the film for issuing certificate for public exhibition, it is expected that the Board will act in accordance with the provision of Cinematograph Act, 1952 and other related laws” The real question is-“Why did the Board fail to act in accordance with the Act and the related laws?” The question again is-“When even a small Indian boy knows that Ram Leela signifies a particular and specific religious event and custom for Hindus, why did the intellectual members of the Certifying authority forget the fact that the producers and director of the film Ram Leela are using this title/name for a film that can at best be called a crude and vulgar picture related with dirty dialogues, half clad men and women in compromising positions , has nothing at all associated with the holy festival of Ram Leela and was openly, blatantly and clearly denigrating and insulting the huge and immense religious feelings and devotions associated with the term Ram Leela among millions of Hindus, just in the name of artistic freedom and for creating controversies to generate a few more lucre?”
82.                       That summing it up, it kindly needs to be realized, understood and appreciated that Religion is a reality; religious emotions are a truth; Ram Leela has a definite meaning attached to it; Ram Leela has extremely pious and religious sentiments for Hindus and the way the name Ram Leela has been used by Sri Bhansali and his team to show something that has nothing to do with the Hindu events of Ram Leela but is abjectly vulgar and improper is a direct and definite misuse of the words Ram Leela; is an insult of the religious feelings and is a criminal and heinous act, other than being immoral, improper and deplorable.
83.                       That to ignore these religious sentiments would hence be treated as being nothing short of being insensitive, improper and dangerous.
84.                       That the petitioners, though not themselves devout Hindus, with the petitioner No 1 being almost an atheist and petitioner No 2 being a liberal Hindu, do understand and appreciate these realities of facts as they exist in the Human mind, particularly in the context of India and feel it their duty to bring all these facts before this Hon’ble Court and hence they accordingly pray with utmost respect before this Hon’ble Court not to adopt a theoretical attitude of focusing solely on nice-soundings words like creative art, freedom of expression, liberalism, moderate thoughts etc but to kindly equally appreciate the hard realities of life, which this Hon’ble Court has itself previously done in Vinod Shanker Misra vs Salman Khan (supra).
85.                       That hence the petitioners strongly urge before this Hon’ble Court that though it might theoretically have been much better if the people all over the globe had not reacted so violently when a disoriented and misdirected person somewhere in a Scandinavian country made a cartoon figure allegedly resembling the Holy and extremely revered and respected religious Prophet of a particular religion and had shown more tolerance towards such things, but the reality is what actually happened.
86.                       That such things have been witnessed many a times in every culture, every civilization, every country, including India and including among the followers of Hinduism and hence the petitioners humbly beg that instead of sitting on Ivory towers, let us bow down to the hard realities and respect the facts as they exist and not as we might like them to exist.
87.                       That it was exactly because of these reasons that this Hon’ble Court in Vinod Kumar Mishra vs Salman Khan (supra) very clearly and correctly stated that Indian culture has its own complexities and intricacies and the artificial concepts of the West cannot be tried to be superimposed in exactitude because it needs to be understood and realized that each culture is different in its sensitivity and these sensitivities do need to be respected.
88.                       That what this Hon’ble Court held for Raas Leela holds true for Ram Leela in equal measures, if not more.
89.                       That what kindly needs to be noted that Sri Bhansali and his team have been deliberately and intentionally insensitive in their approach that other than naming the film “Ram Leela” they also call it “Goliyon ki Raas Leela”, thus in one sway they have hurt/insulted the sentiments of the followers of Hinduism on two counts- as regards both the reverend events related with Lord Ram as well as Lord Krishna.
90.                       That the petitioners believe that Sri Bhansali and his team picked up this name only to raise controversy and to rake more riches, because the name was not at all required and could have been easily avoided, particularly after knowing the public reactions coming all over the Nation, including those mentioned by the petitioner No 2 through her previous Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thus to the petitioners Sri Bhansali and his team come as people to whom nothing counts other than money, even at the cost of hurting religious sentiments of millions of people.
91.                       That the petitioners feel so because otherwise there are lakhs of names in this world and even in Hindi language which he could have picked for his film but why did he pick only the names Ram Leela and Raas Leela? Why did he need to name his film Ram Leela? What was the need to do so? Did the story of the film demand so? And did he not know that Ram Leela and Raas Leela symbolize and mean very sacred Hindu events? When he knew so, what was so creative in using this name for a film where it was not at all warranted and which he definitely knew would ruffle the sentiments and feelings of the devout worshippers and followers of Hinduism?
92.                       That is also kindly needs to be seen that all this has already been stated in section 5A and 5B of the Cinematographer’s Act 1952, the Cinematographers Rules 1973 and the Guidelines of the MIB dated 06/12/1991 but sadly each of these has been openly defied and ignored by the Board while making a decision as regards grant of licence to the film “Ram Leela.”
93.                       That finally it is being clearly stated that the petitioners have nothing against this film as far as its contents, its inner facts, its story etc is concerned and though they personally find the dialogues perverse and the depiction improper they don’t agitate this point because here each person has a right to have one’s own thoughts, one’s own perceptions and subjective assessment and hence the petitioners being realistic enough to understand that artistic fervor and creative products are variedly perceived by varied people, they completely ignore this issue and the only point on which they want the certificate to be quashed is as regards the name “Ram Leela” as has been explained in great details in the above Para.
94.                       That thus the petitioner requests the Hon’ble Court to kindly direct the respondents to produce the Certificate of Public exhibition along with all the relevant records related with the film (including the film, its promos, advertisements etc and the records related with the process of grant of Certificate to this film) and after having satisfied itself with what the petitioners have stated in their petition, to kindly cancel/quash the Certificate of public exhibition granted under the provisions of the Cinematographers Act 1952 and to kindly also reprimand the concerned respondents to be more vigilant in their approach as regards religious sentiments of all religions, while dealing with issues related with religions and religious sentiments, during the process of grant of certificate of public exhibition.  
95.                       That, there is an immediate and urgent need for taking cognizance and to decide the matter in accordance with merit of the facts because the film is stated to be released four days later on 15/11/2013 and the import and impact of this film are extremely serious, as presented in details in the above Para.
96.                       That now that the Board as the statutory body has already granted the Certificate of Registration, there is no other provision in the Act for the petitioners or such other third parties to opt for any legal remedy in accordance with the Act and whatever provisions for Appeal and Revision etc are there in 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F of the Act are there for the affected parties who applied for the certificate, hence the petitioners approach this Hon’ble Court, left with no other option than to approach the Hon’ble Court with this Writ Petition to ask for certain prayers because of the reasons being stated among the Grounds as enumerated below.
97.                       That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof has been enclosed along with

 



GROUNDS
(1)            Because the producers and directors of this film Ram Lila are openly violating the rules and regulations of our land as envisaged under section 5(B)(1) of the Cinematography Act 1952
(2)            Because the forthcoming film Ram Lila has taken a name from one of the most pious, sanctimonious, sacrosanct and revered event/festival of Hinduism which has a tradition that is almost timeless.
(3)            Because when the name Ram Lila comes, every person, Hindus in particular, thinks that a particular religious event is being talked of.
(4)            Because in this particular case, the producer and director of this alleged film Ram Lila are using this extremely pious word to make a film which they term “Goliyon ki Raas Lila”.
(5)            Because the promos and advertisements of this have dirty and vulgar dialogues, dirty slogans, cheap acts where the lead actors are present in compromising positions and the film has nothing to do with Hindu religion.
(6)            Because this is certainly hurting/insulting and outraging the religious sentiments of Hindus and goes against section 5B(1) of the Cinematographer Act as being against public order and is offensive and also likely to incite the commission of any offence.
(7)            Because as explained in details in above Para, this film is blatantly against the Rules and the Guidelines dated 06/12/1991
(8)            Because religion is a reality, religious sentiments are a truth and there is a need to respect and acknowledge this fact
(9)            Because we shall not adopt unwarranted theoretical approach while dealing with the religious sentiments of any particular religious community just because they are allegedly “more tolerant”
(10)      Because this a deliberate and intentional malicious act on the part of respondents No 1 and 2 and kindly needs to be seen in this light
(11)      Because there is a need to show the due sensitivity to the religious feelings of Hindus as well and hence to stop exhibition of any film that insults their religious feelings and is against the related laws in many ways
(12)      Because this is a matter of larger and wider public interest and has extremely large, far and wide repercussions


PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-
(a)             to kindly direct the respondents to produce the Certificate of Public exhibition granted by the Central Board of Film Certification under the provisions of the Cinematographers Act 1952 to the Hindi feature film “Ram Leela” produced and directed by respondents No 1 and 2, on or around 28/10/2013 and the records related with the process of grant of Certificate to this film along with all the relevant records related with the film Ram Leela (including the entire feature film, its promos, advertisements etc) and after having satisfied itself with what the petitioners have stated in their petition, to kindly issue a Writ of certiorari canceling/quashing the above Certificate of public exhibition granted under Cinematographers Act 1952
(b)            to kindly issue a General mandamus reprimanding and directing the concerned respondents to be more vigilant in their approach as regards religious sentiments of all religions, while dealing with issues related with religions and religious sentiments, during the process of grant of certificate of public exhibition to other films in future.
(c)             Issue any other order or direction in the interest of justice and larger public interest as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case


Lucknow                                                                 Asok Pande
Dated- 11/11/2013                                           Counsel for Petitioner                                                                                                    # 94154-65438

















In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B- Civil)

Amitabh Thakur and another                                                 Petitioners
Versus
Sri Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others                                                Respondents








AFFIDAVIT
I, Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- P Hd, D Litt, profession- Social activist and journalist, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-
1.     That the deponent is the petitioner No 2 in the above noted petition and as such she is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder. She also states on oath that she is filing this Affidavit on behalf of Petitioner No 1 as well.
2.     That the contents of the paragraphs 1                                                                     of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,                                            based on documents and records and                                                   along with the Interim Relief application (presented separately) are believed to be true or are based on legal advice.
3.     That the Annexure No 1 to 5 the true copy of the original.

Place Lucknow                                                                  (Nutan Thakur)
Date-     11/11/2013                                                      Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2013  at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.
                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                              clerk to Sri                                                                                                                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me
                                                                                    Oath Commissioner

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. ASHISH DUBEYNovember 12, 2013 at 3:32 AM

    बहुत ही बढ़िया प्रयास है सर .....
    आज के दौर में हर तरफ से हमारी सनातनी संस्कृति के साथ छेड़ छड़ करने का प्रयास किया जा रहा है , अगर हम हिन्दू ऐसी गिरी निम्न मानसिकता वालो कि चाल को नहीं समझे तो ये ऐसे ही हमारा , हमारी संस्कृति का मज़ाक बनाते रहेंगे ...आपके इस कार्य में हर एक हिन्दू आप के साथ है.

    हरी ॐ ....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prateek BabuNovember 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM

    सराहनीय प्रयास!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. khullamkhullaNovember 12, 2013 at 5:33 AM

    http://www.khullamkhulla.net/sanajybhansaliramleela.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownNovember 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM

    (y) bahut achha!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)