upcoming film, ‘Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak’, has received some relief ahead of its scheduled theatrical release on November 20, after the refused to entertain a fresh Public Interest Litigation () seeking a stay on its release.
The petitioners had raised objections to the film’s trailer, alleging that it glorifies violence against medical professionals and portrays the healthcare sector as broadly corrupt, the Times of India reported.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma declined to entertain the fresh PIL, observing that a similar petition was already pending before a single judge of the High Court.
“We see no reason to entertain the present PIL,” the bench observed.
The court noted that the other petition was scheduled for hearing on November 16 and said there was no reason to initiate parallel proceedings on the same issue. However, it allowed the petitioners to join the pending matter and pursue their representation before the concerned authorities.
The PIL was filed by Dr Nachiketa Bhatia and Dr Dhruv Chauhan, who challenged the proposed theatrical release of the Sunny Deol-starrer.
The petitioners alleged that the film’s official trailer depicts doctors and other medical staff being physically assaulted in a manner that presents such violence as heroic.
They also objected to what they described as a generalised portrayal of corruption within the medical profession. According to the petitioners, such depictions could fuel hostility towards doctors and potentially trigger law-and-order issues.
The plea invoked Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and sought directions to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to examine the film.
The petitioners asked the authorities to modify or remove scenes and dialogues they considered objectionable. They also sought an interim ex-parte order to halt public screenings until the film underwent the required statutory examination.
During Wednesday’s hearing, counsel for the petitioners argued that the matter was sensitive and that a PIL would provide a wider scope for consideration than an individual writ petition.
The counsel also raised concerns over the language used in the film’s teaser, claiming it could create the impression among viewers that relatives of patients could resort to violence against doctors and other medical staff.
The petitioners informed the court that they had already submitted a representation to the concerned authorities and requested that it be considered.
Meanwhile, the CBFC’s counsel told the bench that the film had not yet received certification and that its certification process was still pending.
Despite these submissions, the division bench declined to entertain the fresh PIL, citing the similar petition already pending before a single judge of the High Court.
The court’s decision was based on the existence of the pending proceedings and did not amount to a determination of the allegations raised against the film.
