Mumbai: Kangana Ranaut’s film Emergency, which has sparked controversy due to opposition from Sikh organizations, received no relief from the Bombay High Court today. The court stated that it cannot direct the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a certificate, as doing so would conflict with a Madhya Pradesh High Court order.
Despite this setback, Ranaut, who is also a BJP MP, claimed a victory in court. She posted on X, “The High Court has criticized the censor board for illegally withholding the certificate for #Emergency.”
The film, co-produced by Ranaut’s Manikarnika Films and Zee Studios, was initially set for release on September 6. However, with the Bombay High Court’s ruling, Zee Entertainment Enterprises’ attempt to compel the Censor Board to issue the necessary certificate means the film’s release is now uncertain.
The film, which portrays the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi’s government in 1975, encountered controversy after the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the leading Sikh religious body, accused it of misrepresenting Sikhs and called for a ban. Kangana Ranaut later claimed that the Censor Board had suspended the certification for her film. Government sources indicated that some religious organizations have expressed concerns about the film. “Religious sentiments cannot be disregarded. The movie contains some sensitive content,” a source stated, noting that the Centre is carefully reviewing these concerns.
Two Sikh organizations filed a Public Interest Litigation against the film in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In response, the Censor Board informed the court that the film had not been issued a certificate, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
During court proceedings, Zee’s counsel, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, explained to the bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla that the CBFC had informed Manikarnika Films on August 8 that the film was suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, pending some modifications. The filmmakers submitted the revised film to the CBFC on August 14.
On August 29, Manikarnika received an email from the CBFC stating that the CD was sealed and requesting Kangana Ranaut to collect the certificate. However, the certificate was not subsequently issued, reportedly due to opposition from Sikh communities.
Dhond argued that the CBFC is a censor body and “not an authority to manage law and order.” He added, “The film’s producer is a sitting MP. The CBFC could have issued the certification and left it to the State to handle any unrest. They cannot retract the certification merely because of subsequent unrest.”
Representing the CBFC, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud stated that the certificate cannot be issued until it is signed by the Censor Board’s chairperson. He also noted that the Bombay High Court cannot instruct the CBFC to issue the certificate, as it would conflict with a Madhya Pradesh High Court order.
The court dismissed the CBFC’s argument that the certificate had not yet been issued.
The bench commented, “Once the filmmakers have made the required modifications and the CD with these changes is successfully sealed, we must assume that the CBFC has reviewed and processed it, and the subsequent email to Manikarnika confirming the successful sealing of the CD reflects that.”
However, the court noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order was based on the Centre’s claim that the film had not been certified and was still under review.
Refusing relief to the filmmakers, the court said, “We cannot issue this direction because the Madhya Pradesh High Court specifically instructed the CBFC to consider the objections from the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat before certifying the film. Directing the CBFC to issue the certificate would breach the division bench’s directive.”
The court emphasized, “Judicial propriety requires that such orders not be passed. Therefore, we cannot direct the CBFC to issue the certificate as requested by the petitioner. However, we will not dismiss the petition at this time and direct the CBFC to consider any objections.”
When Mr. Chandrachud mentioned that the Board needs to address additional objections and that this might delay the decision, the court responded, “You cannot leave it open-ended. Movies are released on Fridays, and there are significant investments involved.” He countered, “The CBFC cannot be held hostage.”
The bench instructed the CBFC to address the representations before the next hearing on September 19.
