Delhi High Court
Akhand Rashtrawadi Party vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 November, 2017
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 10425/2017
% Date of Decision: 24th November, 2017
AKHAND RASHTRAWADI PARTY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.N. Singh with Mr.
Puneesh Grover, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC
with Mr. Sanjay Pal and Ms.
Shruti, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Abhishek Malhotra with
Ms. Deepa Trigunayat,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala with
Ms. Niyati Kohli and Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, Advs. for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM No.42610/2017 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.10425/2017 & CM No.42609/2017
1. This writ petition makes the following prayer:
"Issue Writ in nature of Mandamus or Direction or
order to Respondents especially Respondent No.5 to
constitute a committee consists of members belongs to
Respondent No.5 itself, social activist/petitioner along
with his counsels, three expert historians from M.L.
University, Udaipur Rajasthan, Delhi University, and
Banaras Hindu University, U.P. or any other
University, headed by one retired Judge of Delhi High
Court which shall be appointed by this Hon'ble
Court, prior to release of the movie "Padmavati" in
order to ensure no distortion with the Indian History
in respect of Rani Padmavati of Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan so that, sentiments of Citizen of India or
Hindus/Rajputs etc. will not be hurt and the
committee will submits its report to this Hon'ble
Court within 30 days from the date of constitution of
the said committee for the purpose."
2. We are informed that the matter of certification for the film
"Padmavati" is pending consideration before the Central Board of
Film Certification.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have also placed before
us the following orders dated 20th November, 2017 passed by the
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition(s) (Criminal)
No.(s).186/2017 titled Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela
Bhansali:
"Heard Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate,
appearing in person and Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned
senior counsel, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel being assisted by Mr. Mahesh Agarwal who
have entered caveat.
In the course of hearing, we have been apprised that
the film in question, i.e., 'Padmavati' has not yet
received the Certificate from the Central Board of
Film Certification.
In view of the aforesaid, our interference in the writ
petition will tantamount to pre-judging the mater
which we are not inclined to do. The writ petition is
accordingly disposed of.
Needless to say, on going through the pleadings, we
think it apposite to strike off what has been stated in
paragraph nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 in entirety and
what has been struck off by this Court should not be
used otherwise. Pleadings in a court are not meant to
create any kind of disharmony in the society which
believes in the conceptual unity among diversity."
4. In view of the above, when the matter is pending before the
Censor Board for Film Certification, the prayer before us is
hopelessly misconceived.
The writ petition as well as pending application are hereby
dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2017/pmc
