On Friday, the Delhi High Court reserved its judgment on several petitions challenging the release of the film “2020 Delhi,” which is based on the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, as well as its trailer on YouTube.
NEW DELHI: The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has informed the Delhi High Court that the plea filed by Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the Delhi riots case, to postpone the release of the movie 2020 Delhi is premature. The censor board has not yet granted a certificate for the film’s exhibition.
The movie, which is based on the 2020 Delhi riots and anti-CAA protests, is scheduled to be released on February 2.
ALSO READ: Sharjeel Imam Moves Delhi High Court To Stop Release Of Movie ‘2020 Delhi’
CBFC and Filmmakers’ Arguments
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the CBFC, told the Court that the petitioners cannot challenge the release of the movie’s trailer on YouTube since it is not subject to CBFC certification.
He stated:”As opposed to a cinema, the internet does not create (content); only receives request to play. It is not subject to certification of CBFC.”
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the filmmakers, supported this argument. He further clarified that the movie is only “inspired by true events“ and does not claim to be based on true events.
Mehta also assured the Court that the movie “will not be released online without a CBFC certificate.”
Sharjeel Imam’s Argument:
On the other hand, Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing Sharjeel Imam, argued that the trailer included statements attributed to Imam and also used his photograph. This, she claimed, could negatively impact his ongoing trial.
“My right to a criminal trial includes this. I urge you to see the trailer. Some comments are attributed to me. My Lord will see my photo. They have not tried to show that it is not me. Everything points to the fact that it is me.”
Justice Sachin Datta acknowledged the submissions from both the CBFC and the filmmakers that the film has not yet received certification, making the plea premature. The Court has reserved its order in the matter.
Imam’s Plea:
On 30th Jan, As per Imam’s petition, the film claims to be based on real events and could “have grave prejudicial effect on his trial and bail applications” in the ongoing Delhi riots cases.
The plea demanded a pre-screening of the movie, postponement of its release until the trial concludes, and the removal of its promotional material from the internet. Imam mentioned that he saw the trailer in jail and was “extremely concerned” about the impact it might have on his trial.
The petition read:
“A film which seeks to portray a false, fabricated and fictional story as a story which is ‘based on true events’ and wrongly brand the Petitioner as a ‘terrorist’ or ‘traitor’ will surely have a grave prejudicial effect on the trial, which is yet to even commence.”
The plea further alleged that the movie’s trailer falsely portrays Imam and other accused individuals as terrorists, even though no charges have been framed against them. It argued that this portrayal could damage their reputation and prejudice the trial.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Pleas Against Release of Film ‘2020 Delhi’
Besides Imam, two others have also challenged the movie’s release: Sahil Parvez – Lost his father in the 2020 riots and Umang – An independent candidate contesting the Delhi assembly elections from Rajinder Nagar.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing Parvez, pointed out that the trailer had already garnered over three lakh views. He stated that the film “claims that it is based on true events.”
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the filmmakers, clarified that the film only states it is “inspired by” real events.
“‘Inspired by’ does not mean true depiction,” he argued.
He also pointed out that since the film has not yet received CBFC certification, the plea challenging its release is premature.
The judge questioned:”Do you not intend to screen? Is that why you have not taken a certification?”
To this, Mehta responded:”I have applied for certification, have not received.”
Pracha stated that if the trailer being aired is not part of the actual story, then he would concede his case.
The Bench observed that without a CBFC certificate, the request to delay the release is premature.
Advocate Dr. Amit George, appearing for Umang, argued that the movie’s release should be postponed until after the upcoming Delhi assembly elections, citing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).
He contended “While the MCC is in operation, it creates disharmony, impacts free and fair elections. Postponement is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech before elections. Till the MCC is on, imperative to ensure elections is not skewed.”
However, Mehta maintained that the film is “only inspired by certain events” and added that the filmmakers are open to modifying the disclaimer.
The Court asked:”Is the petitioner a real character or dramatized?”
Mehta replied”It is for the CBFC to decide.”
He also argued that challenging a trailer in court is not valid since legal remedies exist elsewhere:”There is a remedy elsewhere. Nobody can say bring down a trailer on YouTube without seeking recourse under Information Technology Act.”
The judge further questioned:”Is Sharjeel Imam named (in the movie)?”
Mehta clarified:”He is not the main protagonist and he is not called Imam.”
He reiterated that without CBFC certification, the plea cannot be entertained.
The Court asked the CBFC whether a movie trailer can be released before obtaining certification.
ASG Sharma responded:”There is no bar on trailers being put on internet before CBFC certification.”
He pointed out that there is a well-established grievance redressal mechanism under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
ALSO READ: [Delhi Riot 2020] Delhi HC Denies Bail to Salim Malik
“There is a presumption of due diligence by an intermediary. There is a grievance mechanism in place under the IT Intermediaries Rules.”
He further stressed that before ordering the removal of the trailer, the intermediary (YouTube) must be given a chance to respond.
“If takedown order is given, the intermediaries will have to be heard. The limited challenge to writ jurisdiction is that the government has not done anything wrong. Defamation will be dealt by civil courts.”
Mehta assured the Court once again that the movie “will not be released on social media without certification from CBFC.”
However, Farasat argued that this assurance was insufficient.
“They have used my picture. Just not naming them is not sufficient. They have left no stone unturned to show that it is me.”
The Court has reserved its verdict on the matter today.
Case Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
