Film ridiculing religions, threatening harmony can't be allowed in secular society: Delhi HC on Masoom Kaatil

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a film ridiculing religions, inciting hatred or threatening social harmony cannot be certified for public viewing in a diverse and secular society [Shyam Bharteey v Central Board of Film Certification Regional Officer Delhi & Anr]. .Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that insulting references to communities, derogatory remarks about religions and caste based or communal statements in movies are prohibited under the Rule Guidelines For Certification of Films For Public Exhibition of 1991. “The subject matter film apparently contains not just violent content qua humans and animals but also insulting references to communities, derogatory remarks about religions, and caste-based/communal statements. Such depictions fall within the express prohibitions of Rules 2 (i), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (xiii) of the 1991 guidelines, which prohibits any film likely to promote communal disharmony or offend religious sentiments. In a diverse, secular society, certification cannot be granted to a film that ridicules religions, incites hatred, or threatens social harmony,” the Court said. .Justice Arora rendered these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by filmmaker Shyam Bharteey challenging the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) refusal to grant certification to his Hindi film 'Masoom Kaatil'. The movie depicted Anirudh, a compassionate boy from a deeply religious vegetarian family, profoundly affected by animal cruelty from a young age. After his grandfather’s death and exposure to sacred texts, he becomes convinced that slaughtered animals could be reincarnations of loved ones.By class 12, Anirudh secretly develops a chemical to kill butchers involved in animal slaughter. He later meets Vedika, a classmate with an even stronger hatred for butchers, who convinces him that such offenders deserve the same pain they inflict. Together, they carry out calculated killings, with Vedika leading the mission to eliminate butchers and poultry farm owners across the country.Bharteey’s application for film certification was rejected first by the CBFC’s Examining Committee in Delhi and subsequently by the Revising Committee in Mumbai. Both bodies unanimously found the film unfit for public exhibition, detailing that the movie not only glorified vigilantism but also depicted gruesome violence, human cannibalism, and scenes likely to incite communal tensions. The committees also highlighted the film's use of expletives, violence against animals, and instances of minors participating in violence and criminal acts..Bharteey argued that the decision was arbitrary and that the Board should have considered certifying the film with an ‘A’ rating and recommending suitable cuts. .After examining the movie’s trailer on YouTube, the High Court said that it was a difficult watch because it contained gore violence. Justice Arora said that it was concerning that the protagonists of the films are school-going teenagers who are shown to be involved in gore-violence, lawlessness and anti-social acts. The film fails to condemn or correct such behaviour, thereby risking the morals of young viewers, the Court said. “This portrayal violates Rule 2 (iii) (a) of the 1991 guidelines, which prohibits films from corrupting the morality of children and susceptible audiences, and impermissibly glamorizes juvenile wrongdoing,” the Court said. Further, it said that if a film makes it seem that taking the law into your own hands is something to be admired and celebrated, it can damage people’s trust in the legal system and suggest that using violence instead of following the law is acceptable. “When such dangerous ideas are combined with graphic scenes of killing and cannibalism, the subject matter film could seriously upset public peace and encourage others to act violently, putting the safety of society at risk,” it added. .Shyam Bharteey appeared in person. Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ripudaman Bhardwaj and Advocate Amit Kumar Rana represented the CBFC. .[Read Judgment]