Sr Adv Jayant Mehta, appearing for movie producers, says that movie is sensitive to the issue of female infanticide and there are proper disclaimers at the start of the movie and during the scene informing audience that the act is a crime. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar
J Chawla: These are all optical illusions. If you want to send a message send it loud and clear. Have the disclaimer at the centre in big font not in one corner where it is barely legible.
Mehta: We will take instructions on that.
Counsel for the petitioner says that the part shown to the bench is a shorter versions.
Mehta: There has been complete compliance with everything that is required.
Mehta: There is a disclaimer in beginning, in the scene where sonography is being taken place. The film complies with every law. The censor board has examined and certified it.
Mehta: The whole theme is to arouse people against female foeticide. The petitioners have just picked up one scene. We have complied with everything that fell from the bench. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Counsel: The advertisement of sex determination is prohibited in the act. The question is do the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 override those provisions. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
J Chawla: Without the disclaimer the message might have gone that it is not prohibited. Prohibition does not mean that the ill has disappeared from the society. The ill is still there.
J Chawla: suppose a movie tomorrow comes out a doctor is providing a medicine or doing a test which is unethical do we ban the movie?
Counsel: The PCPNDT act works on a different level. The movie is not being watched by people in courtroom.
J Chawla: Look at the context in which it is coming. It is trivialising as to what extent people go. It is saying people look to what extent you are going.
J Chawla: No one is saying your freedom of speech can allow you to advertise it. But in this case we can't hold that what they are doing is an advertisement. They are showing it as an ill. There is no question of advertisement.
J Chawla: You have achieved your purpose now that they have given the disclaimer. They will do it during the scene as well as at the time when they use that Jai Mata Di or Jai Shri Krishna slogan.
Counsel: People who will be watching are not the people in this courtroom. It will be watched by people who are not as wise...
J Chawla: They are saying they are fools. Appreciate the message going from the movie. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Bench asks Mehta to ensure that the disclaimer appears both the times.
Court also asks Mehta to ensure that a more visible disclaimer is there in trailer. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Mehta says he will obtain instructions.
Court jokes that it will list the matter for next hearing on Thursday and then the disclaimer in the entire movie. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Mehta refers to SC's judgment in Bandit Queen movie.
Mehta: The HC had injuncted because there were explicit scenes.
Mehta: But the apex court said that the film must be viewed in its entirety. The court said that films that show social evils cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts social evils.
Mehta: This is what we are doing. The same thing happened in Padmavat.
Mehta: The point is my friend highlights an issue which is even not remotely advanced by the movie. There are two aspects one is female infanticide and second is blind, superstitious, unscientific belief. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Mehta's instructing counsel informs that they will put the disclaimer in the second part as well.
Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia asks for similar disclaimers to be put in trailers as well. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Ahluwalia (appearing for censor board): The trailers are on @YouTube as well.
Mehta: We have no difficulty. We also bow down that in a week's time we will incorporate it in the video on youtube. But that is where it should end. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar
Court dictates order.
Order: This PIL has been filed seeking a direction against R-3 to delete scenes from its movie "jayeshbhai jordaar" which show the sex determination excercise being conducted at an ultrasound clinic.
Order: The learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is in violation of PCPNDT Act, 1994. The counsel further places reliance on the judgment of the SC in Dr Sabu Mathew George v UOI and Ors.
Order: On the other hand, learned counsel for R1 and R3 and Sr Counsel for R4 submits that movie has clearance from the CBFC subject to static disclaimer during the scene of ultrasound and prenatal gender test.
Order:
The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that as far as the movie is concerned, a static disclaimer appears at the beginning which against states that it is punisbhable offence. He submits that the theme of the movie is in fact...
... to highlight the issue of female foeticide and it is this light that the scenes are important and do not advertise or promote use of such techniques. On the contrary, the scenes seek to discourage such tests. #DelhiHighCourt#JayeshbhaiJordaar#SexDetermination
Order:
We have also perused the trailer as also the relevant scenes from the movie. We had suggested certain further disclaimers to be displayed in the trailer as also in the movie when the scenes in relation to ultrasound scene and another connected scene is depicted.
Order:
The learned senior counsel, without prejudice to his submissions, has agreed to depict a further static warning/disclaimer to be depicted during the running of both the scenes.
Order:
A Screenshot of such disclaimer is reproduced here. Keeping in view that the film has already been certified and is scheduled to be released on May 13 and the disclaimer that has now been agreed to be show during the scene in question, we do not consider...
... The petitioner submits that he will not submit the petition further. The sennior counsel submits that similar warning/disclaimer will be depicted on all formats on the trailer and Youtube. He however submits that he will require some time. he assures that the same...
Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court will shortly hear a petition seeking a direction to ASI to open doors of over 20 rooms inside the Taj Mahal premises so that the alleged controversy related to the “history of Taj Mahal” can be put to rest
A bench of Justices DK Upadhyay and Subhash Vidyarthi will be hearing the Tajmahal matter shortly.
#SupremeCourt to hear a batch of appeals and a fresh plea against verdicts of the Madras and Bombay HCs which dismissed challenges to the decision of the Centre to trade 5 per cent of its shareholding in Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) through an IPO #LIC#IPOAlert
#SupremeCourt to hear appeal by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee against a Delhi HC order dismissing their petition seeking quashing of summons issued to them in a money-laundering probe linked to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal @abhishekaitc@dir_ed
Hearing begins.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: This matter- in Nalini Chidambaram the same issue arose and Justices passed an order saying that the interim order in the HC will continue.
#Breaking Justice Rajiv Shakdher of Delhi High Court expresses his regret that he was not able to persuade Justice C Hari Shankar to strike down the marital rape exception in IPC. #DelhiHighCourt#MaritalRape#JusticeRajivShakdher
"He (Justice Hari Shankar), perhaps, hears a beat of a different drummer. I respect that," J Shakdher says in his judgment. #DelhiHighCourt#MaritalRape#Section375IPC
To the petitioners, J Shakdher says, "it may seem that you plough a lonely furrow today but it will change, if not now, some day." #MaritalRape#DelhiHighCourt#Section375IPC
CBI files FIR against Home Ministry officials, Consultancy Companies and Private NGOs who were allegedly used to route FCRA funds, promise to get FCRA approvals.
CBI has alleged that a network of people in Delhi, TN, Jharkhand, North East perpetrated this scam along with Home Ministry officials in the FCRA department.