Today(on 2nd September),The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the Central government and CBFC following a PIL challenging Kangana Ranaut’s upcoming film ‘Emergency,’ which faces scrutiny for its portrayal of sensitive Sikh community issues.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Madhya Pradesh: Today(on 2nd September), The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a notice to the Central government and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the release of Kangana Ranaut’s upcoming film ‘Emergency’. The movie, which has sparked controversy and legal challenges, is being scrutinized for its portrayal of sensitive issues concerning the Sikh community.
Court Seeks Clarification on Film Certification Status
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf asked the authorities for clarification on whether the film had received certification from the CBFC. The Court’s inquiry comes amid concerns that the film may contain scenes that could hurt the sentiments of certain communities.
The High Court also referenced a recent submission by the Central government before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where it was noted that –
“the movie had not yet been certified.”
This statement has raised questions about whether the film will meet its scheduled release date.
Concerns Over Potential Editing and Release Delay
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva highlighted the possibility of the film being edited or delayed, stating-
“In light of the order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Board is reviewing the film. There may be scenes that require editing or deletion, which could potentially delay the release beyond the scheduled date of the 6th.”
This observation reflects the Court’s concern over the content of the movie and its potential impact on public sentiment, particularly within the Sikh community.
Petitioners Representing Sikh Organizations Raise Concerns
The PIL was filed by the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and the Guru Singh Sabha of Indore, with Advocate Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah representing the petitioners. He argued that the trailer of ‘Emergency’ violates the Cinematograph Act by depicting Amritdari Sikhs as violent, with a dialogue stating-
“you want votes, we want Khalistan.”
Ruprah emphasized the potential harm such depictions could cause, particularly to young Sikh children. He stated-
“We have young children wearing patkas to school, and there’s a concern that they may be teased as Khalistanis. The pride of every Sikh lies in joining the Indian Army. Sri Guru Granth Sahib contains 1,430 pages and mentions the word ‘Ram’ 2,500 times. The history of Sikhs is so intertwined with that of Hindus that it’s impossible to distinguish between the two.”
Court Acknowledges Community Contributions
The Court acknowledged the contributions of the Sikh community during times of crisis, as Justice Sachdeva observed-
“Contrary to misconceptions, during the first and second lockdowns, Sikhs in Delhi and around the world were at the forefront of helping others. They led efforts to provide food and shelter, and in Delhi, when there was an oxygen shortage, all Gurdwaras ensured a steady supply, even sourcing it from distant locations.”
Given the gravity of the concerns raised, the Court decided to issue notices to the filmmakers and listed the matter for urgent hearing. The Court’s prompt action underscores the importance of addressing the allegations of potential harm caused by the film.
Parallel Proceedings in Punjab and Haryana High Court
Meanwhile, the Centre had already responded to a similar PIL in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where concerns were raised about the movie targeting the Sikh community. The Centre informed the Court that “certification of the film had not yet taken place” and assured that all necessary precautions, including those mandated by the Cinematograph Act, would be taken to ensure that the content does not hurt the sentiments of any community.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while taking note of the Centre’s assurance, observed that even after certification, aggrieved parties have the right to approach the CBFC for a review of the film by a Revising Committee.
The Court stated-
“In light of the assurance provided by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, and given the availability of alternative remedies, this Court finds it appropriate not to issue a notice in this case. The petitioners are instead advised to pursue remedies under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.”
The petitioners before the Madhya Pradesh High Court were represented by Advocates Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah and Navtej Singh Ruprah. Advocate Sandeep Shukla appeared on behalf of the Union government, while Additional Advocate General Amit Seth represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.
In the parallel case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioners were represented by Advocates Deepinder Singh Virk, Imaan Singh Khara, KS Sidhu, GS Salana, and JS Salana. The Union government was represented by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain and Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain, with Additional Advocate General Saurav Khurana representing the State of Punjab.