“We see no reason to entertain the present PIL,” the Delhi High Court said in turning away the PIL Against Sunny Deol Film Suryaa, filed by two doctors who say its trailer glorifies violence against medical personnel; a similar plea is already pending before a single judge.
New Delhi: A public interest litigation seeking a stay on the theatrical release of the upcoming film “Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak”, starring actor Sunny Deol and set to release on November 20, found no taker in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (November 4), which refused to entertain it [Nachiketa Bhatia & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma declined to take up the matter, noting that a single judge is already dealing with a similar plea.
Why the Bench stayed out
The Bench noted that a similar plea is pending before a single judge and is listed for hearing on November 16, and said there was no reason for a multiplicity of proceedings.
“We see no reason to entertain the present PIL.”
The petitioners were allowed to join the proceedings before the single judge and given liberty to pursue their representation before the authorities. The Court did not examine the merits of the objections to the film.
The doctors’ petition
The PIL was filed by Dr. Nachiketa Bhatia and Dr. Dhruv Chauhan through Advocates Satyam Singh Rajput and Neema. Their ground for challenging the release was that the film’s official trailer depicts physical violence against medical personnel as heroic and unfairly generalises corruption in the healthcare profession.
The petitioners contended that this violates Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and threatens public law and order. They sought directions to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to examine, modify or delete the allegedly objectionable scenes or dialogues, and an ad-interim ex parte stay on public screening pending statutory examination.
What was argued
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue is sensitive and that the scope of a PIL would be wider than that of proceedings in a writ petition. He argued that the language used in the teaser gives an impression that relatives of patients can now resort to violence against doctors and medical staff.
He added that a representation raising the same concerns as the PIL had already been made to the authorities and asked that it be decided.
Counsel for the CBFC told the Court that no certificate has been issued to the film so far and that certification is pending consideration.
What the order leaves open
Challenges to films before certification are common, and courts generally leave the first examination to the CBFC under the Cinematograph Act. With certification still pending and a similar petition already before a single judge, the Division Bench declined to open a parallel PIL track on the same grievance.
The doctors’ concerns about the portrayal of violence against medical staff remain open for consideration by the CBFC on their representation and by the single judge on November 16.
Case Title: Nachiketa Bhatia & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
For the Petitioners: Advocates Satyam Singh Rajput and Neema
