On a significant note, the Allahabad High Court, during a hearing on Wednesday, asked the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to furnish personal affidavits. These affidavits were sought in response to legal pleas against the screening of the movie Adipurush, bringing the film under a fresh wave of scrutiny.

The hearing, conducted under the purview of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh, made an emphatic appeal to the filmmaking fraternity.

The Allahabad High Court in India sent out a clear and forceful message to the filmmaking community during a hearing session. The Court took a decisive stand, pointing out that it is paramount for filmmakers to refrain from creating content based on religious texts, potentially opening up a broader conversation about the role of religion in cinema.

The High Court, presided by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Shree Prakash Singh, found itself addressing pleas against the controversial film Adipurush. The movie, under intense scrutiny, prompted the Court to call upon the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to tender personal affidavits.

"Aap logo ko Quran, Bible ko bhi nahin touch karna chahiye. Mai yeh clear kar dun ki kisi ek dharm ko mat touch kariey. Aap log kisi bhi dharm ke baare me galat tarah se mat dikhaye. Court ka koi religion nahin hai," the Court said.

The central point of contention during this hearing emerged when the Bench, composed of Justice Chauhan and Justice Singh, drew the attention of the film fraternity towards the delicate nature of religious content in cinema. They urged filmmakers to demonstrate responsibility and respect towards all religions. Justice Chauhan, the senior member of the Bench, was quoted as saying, "You must not touch Quran or the Bible. Let me clarify that you must not touch any religion. Please don't show religions in wrong light. The Court has no religion."

In a significant moment just before concluding the session, Justice Chauhan aired his views on the motive that often drives filmmakers. He opined that the primary objective of filmmakers appeared to be profit generation rather than promoting a balanced, sensitive narrative. To illustrate the potential ramifications of religious insensitivity, he presented a hypothetical situation. He mused, "If you make even a short documentary on the Quran depicting wrong things, then you will see what can happen," offering an insight into the potential repercussions of handling religious content inappropriately.

On a related note, back on June 27, the High Court had entrusted the Deputy Solicitor General with the responsibility of gathering comprehensive instructions from the I&B Ministry and the CBFC. Furthermore, the Court had given its consent to an application which sought the inclusion of Manoj Muntashir Shukla, the dialogue writer of the contentious movie, as a party in the case and accordingly issued a notice to him.

Deputy Solicitor General of India, SB Pandey, during this hearing, reported to the Court that a team of five expert members had certified the film. He also mentioned that the certificate had remained unchallenged by the petitioners.

"Aap keh rhe hain ki sanskar wale logon ne is movie ko certify kiya hai jahan Ramayana ke baare mein aisa dikhaya gaya hai to wo log 'dhanya' hai," the Court said.

(If you're saying that the board certified this movie where Ramayana was portrayed this way then they are truly blessed.)

The Court’s response to this was not free from sarcasm, suggesting that those who had endorsed a movie that represented the Ramayana in such a way were indeed "blessed."

This entire legal tussle was triggered by a plea filed by social activists Kuldeep Tiwari and Bandana Kumar. They lodged a complaint that the movie cast a shadow of doubt over the sacred epic Ramayana's integrity. Additionally, they argued that the film also tarnished the cultural heritage of Ayodhya and the Hindu religion. The petitioners were represented by Advocates Ranjana Agnihotri and Sudha Sharma in this case.

The petitioners articulated that the film's trailer was awkward and indecent, which consequently hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. They further pointed out the CBFC’s inaction despite the Allahabad High Court having issued a notice to them during a hearing conducted in January 2023.

In addition to the main plea, an amendment application was recently submitted. This application sought to include Manoj Muntashir Shukla, the dialogue writer of the film, as a party in the case. It also expressed disapproval over the dialogues crafted by Shukla, labeling them as 'ridiculous', 'filthy', and 'against the glory of Ramayan yug'. This statement underscored the overall sentiment of the petitioners, culminating in a high-voltage legal drama revolving around freedom of expression, respect for religious sentiments, and the ethics of filmmaking.