New Delhi: In a significant judicial development, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition seeking the revocation of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the film ‘Hamare Baarah.’ The movie, which stars veteran actor Annu Kapoor and is directed by Kamal Chandra, has generated considerable controversy over its portrayal of Muslim women and the broader Muslim community.
A vacation bench composed of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti expressed reluctance to adjudicate the matter on its merits, emphasizing procedural propriety. “You challenge the Bombay High Court order. The movie was screened, and the Bombay judges have seen it. They directed expunging a few scenes, shots, and dialogues. If you seek leave and file an appeal, it would be correct for this court to examine the matter,” Justice Nath remarked while addressing the petitioner’s counsel.
Sensing the Supreme Court’s disinterest in directly taking up the plea, the petitioner’s counsel requested permission to withdraw the writ petition. The bench thus dismissed the plea as withdrawn but granted the petitioner liberty to file a special leave petition against the Bombay High Court’s decision that allowed the release of the film on June 21.
The Bombay High Court, in an earlier decision passed on Wednesday, had permitted the release of ‘Hamare Baarah’ subject to modifications of certain content deemed objectionable. The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, argued that the film presented Muslim women as having no independent rights and insinuated that the Muslim community was responsible for India’s burgeoning population.
.
“The director and producers of the film targeted a particular community and portrayed the status of Muslim women as slaves and chattels who are exploited by the male members. Verse 223 of the Surah Baqarah Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran has been misinterpreted and wrongly projected as ordaining the Muslim male to treat the Muslim female as his chattel and allowing him to exploit her in any manner,” stated the plea brought forth by advocate Syed Mehdi Imam.
After viewing the trailer, a faction of Muslim intellectuals vocally protested against the film, alleging that it grossly misinterpreted Islamic texts and aimed to malign Islam and the Muslim community. This controversy added a complex layer to the judicial proceedings, intensifying public debate around the film’s release.
Directed by Kamal Chandra, ‘Hamare Baarah’ also features actors Ashwini Kalsekar, Rahul Bagga, Manoj Joshi, Aditi Bhatpahri, Paritosh Tiwari, Parth Samthaan, and Shaan Saxena in pivotal roles. Despite the backlash, the support for artistic freedom and the right to critique had equally strong proponents, creating a polarized atmosphere ahead of the film’s release.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition signifies a critical moment in the ongoing debate over artistic expression and censorship in India. By deferring to the procedural route, the Court has underscored the importance of following established judicial processes, suggesting that the matter be taken up through a special leave petition against the Bombay High Court’s order rather than being directly escalated to the apex court.
In an atmosphere charged with varying opinions on the film, the legal battle over ‘Hamare Baarah’ mirrors broader societal debates on censorship, religious sensitivity, and the portrayal of minority communities in media. While the Bombay High Court-directed modifications are intended to mitigate some concerns, whether these changes will suffice to appease the offended parties remains uncertain.
The film’s release, now slated for June 21 following the High Court’s modifications, is awaited with bated breath amid continuing controversy. The sequence of judicial interventions and the eventual stance of the Supreme Court may well set a precedent for future cases, impacting the intricate balance between free expression and communal sensibilities in the Indian sociocultural landscape.
As ‘Hamare Baarah’ gears up for its theatrical release, the spotlight remains focused on the legal, social, and cultural implications of this case. With the judiciary’s decision, the road ahead suggests that the film will reach audiences, albeit with alterations, while leaving open the debate on its broader impact and the ethical responsibilities of filmmakers.
