New Delhi, June 29 (ANI): Brahman Samaj of India (BSOI) moved the Supreme Court against the film, ‘Article 15’, starring Bollywood Actor Ayushman Khurana.
The BSOI on Thursday approached the apex court through its National Organising Secretary, Nemi Nath Chaturvedi to stop the release the movie on June 28 and mentioned the matter for an urgent hearing.
However, the Supreme Court vacation bench, headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, refused to hear the matter in an urgent manner. It had also not given any date for hearing the case.
The film was, however, released on Friday.
The BSOI, in its 11-page petition, claimed that the content of the film, shows various objectionable dialogues spreading rumours and caste hatred in the society based on a false and concocted story depicting in the name of a background of a true criminal incident.
This violates and diminishes the true spirit of article 15 and 19 (1) of the Constitution of India, the petition of BSOI stated.
The BSOI, sought a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to cancel the certification granted to Benaras Media Works Pvt Ltd, with respect to the film title and thereby stopping the releasing of the film on June 28, Friday.
The BSOI’s petition, a copy exclusively accessed by ANI, claimed that using the articles of the Constitution of India for the title of films without the approval of the government and for the personal/ commercial gain is illegal.
The release of the film is likely to cause severe damage to the public perception of Article 15 and its origin.
This may lead to a trend in film industries by naming title of any feature film in the name of different articles of the Constitution of India, the petition of BSOI claimed.
This will lead to a great difference between what is written in the Constitution and what is shown in the film and the public perception may lead to public disorder, incitement to offence among different castes against each other.
The BSOI further claimed in its petition that the CBFC had gravely erred in issuing a certificate to the film without considering section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950. It clearly showed that the decision to grant a certificate to the film is an error which requires to be considered by the Apex Court. (ANI)
Published at Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:27:02 +0000