Supreme Court Suspends Release of ‘Hamare Baraah’ Following Concerns Over an Offensive Teaser

(Judicial Quest News Network)

Delhi, June 14: In a significant development, the Supreme Court has stayed the release of the upcoming film ‘Hamare Baarah’ on Thursday, just one day before its scheduled premiere.

The film is accused of being derogatory towards the Islamic faith and married Muslim women in India.

A vacation bench of Justices Vikram nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, in a plea challenging the Bombay High Court‘s order permitting the release of the film.

The Supreme Court’s decision followed a review of a petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision not to halt the film’s release. The filmmaker’s counsel argued that they had complied with the Bombay High Court’s order by removing all objectionable scenes from the promotional material. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating, “We saw the teaser this morning, and all the scenes are still there.”

The SC court said that until disposal of the petition before the High Court, screening of the movie in question shall remain suspended, the bench ordered, disposing of the petition.

The teaser is so offensive that the high court granted an iterim order Justice Nath added referring to the first interim order passed by the high court staying release of the film. Mr. Azhar Basha Tamboli filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), seeking to revoke the certification granted to the film “Hamare Baarah” and to enjoin its release.

The petitioner contended that  after reviewing the trailer of this movie, the producer and director have created false misunderstanding , provocative and derogatory statements about the sermons and messages of Surah ‘Al- Baqarah’ in the movie ‘Hamare Baaraa” I  the movie ‘Hamare Barah’

It is further contended that it looks like an attempt to potray a society in a derogatory way. Analysing a society on the basis of religion the potenetial to endanger health.

The fil ‘Hamare baarah’ if released there is apossibility of disturbing the peace in the state and create enimity between casts, intentionally denigrating the customs of a religion and promoting feelings of hatred between religions or causing deterioration of amity, as well as situations depicted as hurting the sentiments of women.

The petitioner has laso contended that the section-15(2) of the Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1964.requires the concerened to issue a notice and get an explanation , but the directorof the said film Mr. kamal Chandra and the Joint producersMr. Birender Bhagat, Mr. Ravi S. Gupta, Mr. Shio Balak Singh, Mr. Sanajay nagpal and other are in the  neighbouring state and issued a noticesunder section –(15)2 of the karnatak a Cinema (Regulation) Act 1962 to the said  persons, as there is not enough time to get an explaination  from them and verify.

The petitioner also contended that the trailer misrepresented Aayat 223, a verse in the Quran, and failed to include the necessary disclaimers or certification references from the CBFC.Conversely, the CBFCmaintained that the film had been certified following all all procedures and that the objectionable content had been removed.They argued that the trailers on youtube and Book my show, cited by petitioner were uncertified.

After initial hearings the Bombay High Court found in favour of Petitioner and temporarilyrestrained the film’s release until June 14, the court then ordered the formation of a three- member review committee to evaluate the film and provide comments.

However, as thecommittee sought additional time, the court eventually allowed the film’s release, considering the film makers, agreement to remove certain dialogues without prejudice.

Earkier this week, Annu Kapoor’s “hamare baarah” was banned in Karnataka.

The court in its order said that “It goes without saying that both the parties will extend full cooperation in the disposal of the main petition and would not seek any adjournments unless there are compelling reasons for the same.”

The further said that it has not considered the matter on merits and leave all the questions open before the High Court to be considered on its own merits.

Durimng the hearing of the case Addvocate Fauzia Shakil (for petitioner) argued that the high court erred in asking CBFC to appoint a committee , as it was an interested party., agreeing with the counsel, Justice Mehta noted that the petitioner had raised contentions against CBFC and it was clearly an interested party.

Representin g other petitioners Advocate Manish Srivastava submitted on the other hand that the film makers had a right to release the film, as there was a CBFC certification in place.

 He also argued that the petitioner’s grievance was solely based on a specific teaser, which has since been removed from public platforms.