“Adi Purush Movie Makers Seek Supreme Court Intervention Against Allahabad HC’s Personal Appearance Directive”
The Adipurush Movie Makers have recently sought Supreme Court intervention against a personal appearance directive issued by the Allahabad High Court. This directive was issued in relation to the movie’s content and was an unexpected move from the Allahabad High Court.
The movie makers are now hoping for a favourable response from the Supreme Court in order to proceed with their film. This blog post will analyse the legal implications of the ‘s decision to appeal the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.
1. Background of Adipurush movie and the controversy surrounding it
Adipurush is an upcoming Bollywood movie directed by Om Raut and produced by Bhushan Kumar, Krishan Kumar, and Om Raut himself. The movie is based on the epic Hindu mythological tale of Ramayana, with actor Prabhas portraying the lead role of Lord Rama.Many people, especially members of the Hindu community, have objected to the movie’s portrayal of Lord Rama and other characters in the story.
Recently, the Allahabad High Court directed the Adipurush movie makers to appear in person before it and respond to a petition that alleged that the movie was hurting religious sentiments. This directive has prompted the movie makers to seek Supreme Court intervention, as they believe that the High Court’s order is infringing on their right to freedom of expression.
2 .Allahabad High Court’s directive for personal appearance..
In a surprising turn of events, the Allahabad High Court recently issued a directive requiring the Adipurush movie makers to personally appear before the court. This directive came as a shock to the movie makers and has led to them seeking intervention from the Supreme Court.
The Allahabad High Court’s directive for personal appearance stems from a PIL filed against the Adipurush movie, alleging that it promotes communal disharmony and hurts religious sentiments. The court has taken the PILL seriously and believes that a personal appearance by the movie makers is necessary to address the concerns raised.
The Adipurush movie makers have presented their case before the Supreme Court, seeking their intervention to quash the Allahabad High Court’s directive. They hope that the Supreme Court will uphold their rights and dismiss the directive, allowing them to continue their creative work without any unnecessary interruptions. The movie makers have also highlighted the impact this directive could have on the film industry as a whole, potentially leading to self-censorship and stifling artistic freedom.
3.Reasons for the Adipurush movie makers seeking Supreme Court intervention.
The Adipurush Movie Makers are seeking Supreme Court intervention in response to the Allahabad High Court’s directive for personal appearance. This move comes as a result of the controversy surrounding the movie and the potential implications it may have on creative freedom and freedom of expression.
One of the main reasons for seeking Supreme Court intervention is the concern over the violation of the movie makers’ fundamental rights. The movie makers believe that the court’s directive goes against the principles of freedom of expression, which is crucial for artists and filmmakers to express their creativity and ideas.
By seeking Supreme Court intervention, the Adipurush movie makers hope to safeguard their rights as artists and ensure that the judiciary upholds the principles of creative freedom and freedom of expression. Their aim is to set a precedent that supports artists’ ability to create and share their work without fear of undue interference or censorship. Ultimately, this case has far-reaching implications for the future of artistic expression and the movie makers’ decision to seek Supreme Court intervention reflects their commitment to protecting these fundamental rights.
4.Legal arguments put forward by the Adipurush movie makers..
The Adipurush movie makers have presented several legal arguments in their plea seeking Supreme Court intervention against the Allahabad High Court’s personal appearance directive.
Firstly, they argue that the directive goes against the principles of natural justice as it presumes guilt without providing an opportunity for the movie makers to present their case. They contend that the court should have allowed them to file a written response or appear through legal representation, rather than demanding their personal appearance.
Secondly, the Adipurush movie makers argue that the directive infringes upon their fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to carry on a lawful profession. They claim that the court’s decision has caused unnecessary hindrance and harassment to the movie production, impacting their creative and professional liberties.
Furthermore, the Adipurush movie makers highlight that the allegations against them are unsubstantiated and lack concrete evidence. They assert that the film is a work of fiction and not intended to hurt religious sentiments. They argue that the court should consider the movie’s overall message and intent, rather than isolating and misinterpreting certain scenes or dialogues.
5.Possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Adipurush movie makers’ appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s personal appearance directive could have far-reaching consequences.If the Supreme Court sides with the Adipurush movie makers and sets aside the personal appearance directive.
It could establish an important precedent for future cases involving artistic expression and religious sentiments.It could signal that the courts will not allow a few individuals to dictate the content of movies and other works of art.The Supreme Court’s decision could have a significant impact on the future of artistic expression in India.
In conclusion, the Adipurush movie makers have taken a crucial step by seeking Supreme Court intervention against the Allahabad High Court’s personal appearance directive. This controversial directive not only hampers the smooth progress of the movie but also sets a worrying precedent for creative freedom and artistic expression in India.