Supreme Court: Be extremely careful while curtailing artistic freedom
November 17, 2017Supreme Court rejected a plea filed to ban a film based on the life of Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal, titled “An Insignificant Man”. It was expected to be released on November 17. While the rejecting the ban on the film, the Supreme Court held that the courts must be “extremely slow” while curbing artistic freedom.
In the present matter, a three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud held that “A thought-provoking film does not mean it should be against societal norms. A film needs to be expressive to provoke the conscious and subconscious mind of the viewer.”
In the previous week, a petition was filed seeking a stay on the release of Padmavati and expressed that this matter was within the adjudication of Central Board of Film Certification and the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.
The court while disposing of the petition was of the opinion that the courts should be extremely slow in passing any sort of restraint order or stopping a creative man from writing drama or a book or a philosophy projecting his thoughts in a film or a theatre art.
Nachiketa Walhekar, who is facing a trial for throwing ink at the AAP chief in 2013 objected to the release of the film based on the life of Arvind Kejriwal. Walhekar contented that the documentary contains an electronic media recording of the alleged incident to project Kejriwal as a victim and therefore, it was violative of his right to free and fair trial.
He claimed that the makers of the film should either delete the TV footage from the film or there should be a disclaimer about the alleged offence being under the scrutiny and the film in anyway shall not impact his right to fair trial.
The top court held that right to freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and it should not be ordinarily interfered with. CJI was of the opinion that when CBFC has granted the permission to release the film and hence it is not fair on the part of the court to grant an injunction. The court also held that there is no ground specified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India to curtail artistic creativity.