New Delhi: While hearing the batch of petitions concerning the screening of the controversial film ‘The Kerala Story’, the Supreme Court orally remarked on Thursday that as much as the Apex Court was there to protect free speech, vilifying a community could not be permitted. The remark was made when the court was discussing the script of the film which was alleged to be Islamophobic and derogatory to the Muslim community.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala was considering a petition filed by the producer of the film against the ban in West Bengal and the alleged shadow ban in Tamil Nadu and also other petitions seeking stay of the movie’s exhibition.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the West Bengal government’s order banning the screening of the film and asked Tamil Nadu to ensure the safety of moviegoers after theatre owners decided to stop screening the film due to security concerns.
The bench headed by the Chief Justice of India also directed the producer to put a disclaimer in the movie by 5 pm on May 20 on the claim that 32,000 Hindu and Christian women were converted to Islam.
According to the top court, the disclaimer should say that “there is no authenticated data to back up the suggestion on figure of conversion and the film represents the fictionalised version”. The bench said it would like to watch the movie before proceeding to decide the pleas challenging the grant of CBFC certification. It said the petitions will be heard in the second week of July. During the hearing, it said that statutory provisions cannot be used to “put a premium on public intolerance”. The bench said it is the duty of the state government to maintain law and order as the film has been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). “Bad films bomb at the box office,” the bench said. CJI DY Chandrachud said during the hearing: “As much as we protect free speech, you cannot vilify a community.” The counsels appearing for those in favour of banning the film highlighted dialogues and scenes from the movie which, they said, were offensive to the Muslim community. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, said that the dialogues in the film were much worse than the teaser (which claimed that 32,000 women from Kerala were recruited to ISIS through deceitful conversion) and cited certain offensive remarks in the movie.
He said: “This is the kind of stuff you’re saying — until you spit on him, you cannot go to Allah. We are all for freedom of speech but this cannot be permitted.”
To this, Justice Pardiwala asked: “Is this a part of the film?” Sibal replied in an affirmative. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also cited certain portions of the film which he stated were offensive. He argued that adding a disclaimer was not effective as it was just like a statutory warning on alcohol and cigarettes. Reading out excerpts from the film, he highlighted that the story revolved around a woman, Shalini, narrating how thousands were forced to join militancy in Syria. He said: “The movie starts with “fight the non-believers” said by a Muslim man...Another scene shows Muslim clerics talking about how they can lure Hindu women and take them to Syria, and saying if necessary, they can impregnate them... They also say nationalism is a sin and that being a Muslim is the only identity... Another scene shows remarks against Shiva and Rama. I’m not reading it because I find it difficult to read. These are attributed to a Muslim. The consequence of this hate that is generated, that is to be borne into mind.”
Ahmadi argued that if the bench watches the movie, no further arguments would be necessary. He said: “If the film runs its entire course, the damage will be done... Please see the film over the weekend and then decide... Decision also has to be taken for the screening of the film on OTT platforms.”
“We’ll first see the film so we can contextualise and then decide,” CJI said.
Ahmadi also highlighted that the damage done due to the screening of a propaganda film would not just be in terms of physical violence but also in terms of the consequences of the hate generated against a particular community.
Upon the submissions made by the counsels, the bench decided to watch the film and then lay guidelines in terms of what was permissible and what was not. CJI DY Chandrachud said: “We will define a doctrine — what is permitted and what is not. We’ll look at the film and decide it.”With agency inputs