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.
New Delhi, Jan 31: The Delhi High Court reserved its decision on petitions seeking to stop the release of the film 2020 Delhi, which is reportedly based on the northeast Delhi riots of 2020. The petitions were filed by student activist Sharjeel Imam and others. Justice Sachin Datta, who heard the matter, stated that he would examine the petitions and give an appropriate ruling.
The Calcutta High Court Today has reserved its order on the Enforcement Directorate’s prayer to transfer the investigation from West Bengal Police to CBI regarding an attack on ED officials during a raid on TMC leader Shajahan Sheikh. Allegations of bias against state police were raised, and the CBI has expressed readiness to undertake the investigation if directed by the court.
After Split Verdict, The Bombay High Court reserved its order on the interim relief sought by petitioners, including comedian Kunal Kamra, regarding the establishment of Fact Check units (FCU) as per the amended IT Rules, 2023. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the provision serves public interest, while the petitioners contested this, emphasizing freedom of expression. Justice Chandurkar reserved judgment after hearing both sides.
Today (February 27), the Delhi High Court reserved its order regarding the petitions filed by seven BJP MLAs contesting their indefinite suspension from the legislative assembly. Their suspension stemmed from disruptions during Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena’s address at the commencement of the budget session.
The Allahabad High Court has reserved its judgment on the appeal filed by the Gyanvapi Mosque committee contesting the Varanasi Court’s decision permitting Hindu prayers in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’. The case, which revolves around possession and religious rights, highlights the delicate balance between religious freedom and property laws. The judgment’s outcome is anticipated to have significant implications.
