The Delhi High Court refused to certify filmmaker Shyam Bharteey’s Masoom Kaatil, ruling that films mocking religions, glorifying violence, and promoting disharmony cannot be allowed in a secular society. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said such content risks public peace and corrupts young minds.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has made it clear that any film which mocks religions, spreads hatred, or threatens social harmony cannot be certified for public release in India’s diverse and secular society.
The observation came from Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora while deciding on a petition filed by filmmaker Shyam Bharteey against the refusal of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a certificate to his Hindi film Masoom Kaatil.
Justice Arora explained that the law itself does not allow films with insulting content towards communities or religions to be certified.
According to the judge,
“The subject matter film apparently contains not just violent content qua humans and animals but also insulting references to communities, derogatory remarks about religions, and caste-based/communal statements. Such depictions fall within the express prohibitions of Rules 2 (i), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (xiii) of the 1991 guidelines, which prohibits any film likely to promote communal disharmony or offend religious sentiments. In a diverse, secular society, certification cannot be granted to a film that ridicules religions, incites hatred, or threatens social harmony.”
The court dismissed Bharteey’s appeal, where he had challenged the CBFC’s refusal to certify Masoom Kaatil. The film narrates the story of Anirudh, a sensitive boy from a religious vegetarian family who is deeply disturbed by animal cruelty.
After reading sacred texts and losing his grandfather, he begins to believe that slaughtered animals may be reincarnations of loved ones. By the time he reaches Class 12, Anirudh develops a secret chemical meant to kill butchers engaged in animal slaughter.
Later, he joins hands with Vedika, a classmate who shares similar hatred, and together they plan and carry out brutal killings of butchers and poultry farm owners across India.
Both the CBFC’s Examining Committee in Delhi and the Revising Committee in Mumbai unanimously rejected certification for the movie.
The authorities noted that the film glorified vigilantism, displayed disturbing scenes of gore, human cannibalism, and excessive violence, and even had minors involved in such unlawful acts.
The committees further pointed out that the film used abusive language, depicted violence against animals, and contained material that could disturb communal peace.
Bharteey argued before the High Court that the CBFC acted unfairly and should have at least considered giving the movie an ‘A’ certificate with necessary cuts.
However, the High Court, after watching the film’s trailer available on YouTube, found the visuals extremely disturbing. Justice Arora remarked that the gore and violent content made it “a difficult watch.”
The Court expressed concern that the lead characters of the film were school-going teenagers shown engaging in gruesome killings and illegal activities.
The judge said,
“This portrayal violates Rule 2 (iii) (a) of the 1991 guidelines, which prohibits films from corrupting the morality of children and susceptible audiences, and impermissibly glamorizes juvenile wrongdoing,”
Justice Arora further observed that if films project vigilante justice as something admirable, it damages public faith in the legal system.
According to the Court,
“Further, it said that if a film makes it seem that taking the law into your own hands is something to be admired and celebrated, it can damage people’s trust in the legal system and suggest that using violence instead of following the law is acceptable.”
The Court also gave a stern warning about the dangers of such cinema.
It said,
“When such dangerous ideas are combined with graphic scenes of killing and cannibalism, the subject matter film could seriously upset public peace and encourage others to act violently, putting the safety of society at risk,”
Shyam Bharteey appeared in person before the Court, while the CBFC was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ripudaman Bhardwaj and Advocate Amit Kumar Rana.
Case Title:
Shyam Bharteey v Central Board of Film Certification Regional Officer Delhi & Anr
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Teachers
