High Court Rejects PIL on Satluj Film Restoration
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently turned down a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought to reinstate the film ‘Satluj,’ featuring the renowned Punjabi artist Diljit Dosanjh, on the Zee5 platform. This decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, who concluded that the PIL resembled a proxy litigation. The court observed that the film’s producers themselves had not initiated any legal challenge.
The Bench highlighted the necessity for directly affected parties to present their grievances, stating, “Let the aggrieved person come forward.” Following this observation, the senior counsel for the petitioner opted to retract the PIL. The counsel suggested that the film’s director might independently approach the court in a separate legal action.
Legal Background of the Film ‘Satluj’
The film, which centers around the life and tragic demise of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, had a turbulent release history. Initially, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) delayed the film’s theatrical release for three years, demanding specific alterations. Recently, the film was removed from Zee5’s catalog just two days post its online debut, capturing significant media attention.
Sharwan Singh, a law student and Zee5 subscriber, filed the PIL, contending that the removal of the film infringed upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The petition argued that the public’s right to receive information and enjoy artistic expression was compromised due to the film’s abrupt removal without any legal order or judicial directive.
Arguments Presented in Court
Representing the Union of India, Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain contended that the petition lacked merit and maintainability, pointing out that neither the film’s producers nor the OTT platform Zee5 had contested the film’s removal. On the contrary, Senior Advocate Gursharan Kaur Mann, representing the petitioner, argued for the right to view the biographical depiction of a person who stood against injustice.
More Read
While the Bench expressed its disinclination to entertain the PIL, the legal representatives indicated ongoing discussions with the film’s director, suggesting that a new petition might be filed on his behalf. The court, in permitting the withdrawal of the PIL, remarked, “We are not averse to judicial review of their action…”
The legal team for the petitioner also included Advocates Hakam Singh, Ajayvir Singh Randhawa, Shruti, and Anmol Jeevan Singh Gill.
