The Last Word on Aiyaary

Last year, it was claimed before Bombay High Court, trailers of The State v. Jolly LL.B 2 projected Indian Judiciary and Indian Legal System in a derogatory manner. Court found there was a prima facie case of contempt. It constituted a Three-Member Committee, out of which Two Members were Lawyers.

Bom HC’s ‘Legitimization of Special Committees to Review Movies’ gave a fillip to CBFC to invite Royals and Historians to review Padmavaat. Even more recently, Board took suggestions from Competent Authorities of Army, as a ‘measure of caution’, before release of Aiyaary.


If CBFC can solicit such suggestions, Court of Future can be expected to set up further Special Committees as and when Board fails to act. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 129 of 2018], is telling:

“There can be no shadow of doubt that Censor Board can grant a certificate and in said decision making process, it can also consult persons who can assist it to arrive at condign conclusion… grant of certificate by CBFC, after consulting with Authorities of Army, should dispel any apprehension…”


Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 2.46.57 AM.png
Real v. Reel

It is of curiosity, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde argued, Aiyaary has projected Petitioner Society in an unacceptable manner – it is likely to have some impact on litigations which are pending apart from affecting reputation of Members of Society. Supreme Court, on certain occasions, has protected image and reputation of individuals, like in Devidas Ramachandra Tujlapurkar.

Chief Justice explained of Devidas: 

“It is necessary to clarify here that in said case, question was with regard to “poetic license”… reliance placed by Mr. Hegde, Learned Senior Counsel, does not render any assistance… law laid down in said case rests on facts depicted therein.”

It has been said of Devidas before, vagueness and conceptual slippages rife throughout this Judgement leave it unclear how much of an impact it will have doctrinally… Judgement is incorrect, productive of great public mischief, and ought to be overruled.