Calcutta HC Observes Deficiency In Notice Of Hearing For Controversial Film ‘Adipurush’

The hearing regarding the plea to ban the film Adipurush took an intriguing twist at the Calcutta High Court when it was observed that the filmmakers had not been served notice for the hearing, contrary to the petitioner’s claims.

The matter was brought before Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that notice had been served on all the respondents, but after examining the documents, the bench discovered that the affidavit of service was incorrect as some respondents had not been served.

The bench expressed its disappointment, cautioning the petitioner’s counsel to be honest with the court and not make false claims. It emphasized that the court relied on the counsel’s word and trust, and such actions undermined the confidence in the legal profession. The incident prompted the court to announce its decision to discontinue the practice of accepting affidavits of service filed by lawyers in court, instead requiring them to be filed with the concerned department for verification.

The court ordered that court officers should no longer accept affidavits of service filed in court, and advocates must file the affidavit of service in the respective department for verification before presenting it to the court. The petitioner’s counsel was directed to convey this order to all members of the Bar association.

Furthermore, the court criticized the petitioner and their counsel for their apparent lack of research in the case. The court questioned whether they had watched the film and if the petition contained specific details regarding the objectionable aspects. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted concerns about the camera focusing on the private parts of female characters, including Goddess Sita and Vibhishana’s wife, and argued that the film had hurt the sentiments of Hindus.

The bench noted that similar matters were pending before the Allahabad High Court and the Rajasthan High Court. However, it agreed to hear the public interest litigation (PIL) petition and adjourned the matter until notice had been properly served.