Appearing to rebut elements protesting against the release of the film Padmavati, the Supreme Court said that courts must be extremely slow when interfering with artistic freedom. The observation was made while rejecting a plea that sought a ban on a film, 'An Insignificant Man," based on the life of Arvind Kejriwal.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said, "A thought-provoking film does not mean it should be puritanical. A film has to be expressive to provoke the conscious and subconscious mind of a viewer."
Last week the court had rejected a plea seeking a ban on Padmavati. The Bench had observed that it was an issue that was in the domain of the censor board.
The courts should be extremely slow in passing any kind of restraint or order stopping a creative man from writing drama, a book, philosophy or projecting his thoughts in a film or theatre art."
The petitioner Nachiketa Walhekar, who is facing trial for allegedly throwing ink on Kejriwal said that the film had electronic media clippings of the incident to project Kejriwal as a victim. He said that either the scene should be deleted or the makers of the movie should put a bold disclaimer about the incident being under the scrutiny of the court.