Sir — Even as the row over the film Padmavati is escalating, the Supreme Court has issued a directive to not curb freedom of expression unless essential. The observation came from the apex court in light of a petition seeking to bar the release of another film, An Insignificant Man, which is a documentary on Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party convenor Arvind Kejriwal.
Scores of films have been released in the past and more such films will be released in the near future but not all films have met with stiff resistance or are going to be scrutinised by any section of the people.
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should be very circumspect in giving clearance to a film if history and facts are distorted. The CBFC should take into account the objections raised by any section of the people who are opposed to the release of any film. In the case of Padmavati, threats from members of the Shri Rajput Karni Sena, to chop off the actress’s nose, should be dealt with severely.
Trivial objections can be ignored and clearance can be given to films but when the release of a film is loaded with a threat to law and order problems of far-reaching consequences, freedom of expression is secondary. It is the overall responsibility of the CBFC to ensure that no film vitiates harmonious societal relationships or promotes enmity among the people. Public outrage, not political considerations, should be considered while giving clearance for release of a film.