“Therefore, the contention is that the name of the film is to be changed. We fail to understand as to how the title of a film can reflect the community in a bad light. The title of the film nowhere has any adjective or any word that portrays the Yadav community in bad light,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The bench termed the apprehensions as “wholly unfounded” and distinguished its earlier order in a similar case related to Ghooskhor Pandat, in which it had asked the producer to change the title of that movie. “The expression ‘ghooskhor’ in English means corrupt. Therefore, a negative meaning was being attached to the community. In the instant case, no such negativity is attached to the Yadav community. Neither of the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression) under the Constitution is attracted. The name in no way portrays the Yadav community in bad light or any negative way. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the order said.
The petitioner had alleged that the title created an offensive stereotype against the community and raised concerns over the depiction of the female lead. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner argued that while they do not oppose inter-community marriages, the film’s portrayal of a woman was unacceptable. “A lady cannot be publicised this way,” the counsel said, adding that the film claims to be based on a true story. However, the bench remained unconvinced, categorising the film as a work of fiction.
Discover more from News Link360
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
