Will film on Yogi Adityanath get central board's nod? Decision on 'Ajey' in 2 days
Before this assurance, advocates Ravi Kadam, Satatya Anand and Nikhil Aradhe appearing for the filmmaker noted that, "We had applied under a priority process. The charges for priority are three times more than the normal charges. Within 5 days they had to take a decision. I am suffering every day. The international release of my film is on August 1."The bench also noted that the question is whether the CBFC can ask for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) while noting that the CBFC has the prerogative to grant or not grant the certificate, but it cannot sit on it.However, after Khandeparkar's submissions, the bench disposed of the petition.The makers stated that the film is inspired by the book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister, authored by Shantanu Gupta, which is based on the life and public leadership of a contemporary political figure, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.The filmmakers claimed that the CBFC had demanded a NOC from the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) of Uttar Pradesh. They said this was an 'erroneous, extraneous, and baseless demand, despite there being no such requirement under the statute, that is, the Cinematograph Act or the rules framed thereunder.'- EndsTune InMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Mumbai#Uttar Pradesh#Yogi Adityanath
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Right of society to watch or not watch a movie,' says SC while hearing petitions challenging release of ‘Udaipur Files'
The Supreme Court Thursday said 'it is the right of the society to watch or not watch' a movie and that it will only lead to complications if every creative work is sought to be connected or identified with someone or something. Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench which took up pleas for and against allowing release of the film, Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, said that what happens in society becomes a theme for the film industry, fiction writers, artists, etc. The two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, told the counsel for petitioners opposing the film's release, 'Your right can also be safeguarded by permitting people to watch a movie of their choice. You have a right to challenge a revisional decision.' The court's reference was to the July 21 order by a Centre-appointed committee, given after reviewing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the film. Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, gives the Centre revision powers over the decisions of the CBFC. The committee was set up following a direction by the Delhi High Court. Hearing a plea by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, the high court had stayed the release of the film till the Centre took a call. The Supreme Court is also seized of a petition by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, on which the film is based. The committee report recommended that the filmmakers 'replace the existing disclaimer with the provided recommended disclaimer' and include a voice-over for the disclaimer; remove the frames in the credits that thank various individuals; replace all instances of the name 'Nutan Sharma', including on the poster, with a new name, besides directing the removal of some dialogues. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the report. He said the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution 'has to be religion neutral and cannot be selective'. Agreeing with Mehta that it should not be selective, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, said that it is 'not so' in this case. He questioned the composition of the committee but Justice Kant said they must have been duly nominated and added that their appointment by itself is not under challenge. Justice Bagchi said, 'Government can always have an advisory panel; they are seeing an artistic work.' Sibal urged the court to watch the film. He added that there is a judgment by former chief justice Sanjiv Khanna that free speech cannot be hate speech. Sibal said, 'Everything in this movie spews venom about a community. There is nothing else in the movie.' Appearing for the accused Javed, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said allowing the film's release would jeopardise his right to a fair trial. But Justice Kant said, 'Do not underestimate our judicial officers. People sometimes get unnecessarily hyper and apprehensive that the judicial officer or judges are influenced by these things. We will not be able to hold the court single day, if we are affected by these blackmailers… making sarcastic comments only because they are heavily bribed (for making the comments)… it is part of the judicial training of our officers… a judicial officer is duty bound that he or she has to decide the case strictly on the basis of evidence and material on record.' He further said, 'See the predicament of the judges. If they acquit someone, some part of the society will make allegations; if they convict, the other part will. The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense… Most of us don't read newspapers in the morning. We don't care about it. Why should we?' Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for the filmmakers, said all the recommended changes have been made and the movie must now be allowed to be released. 'The movie in totality will not even have the real portrayal as wanted by the Director, but we are still okay with it…' he said, adding, 'I am a law-abiding citizen. I have waited for 10 days. My investment is at stake.' The court said it will hear the case again on Friday, when it will decide whether it should ask those objecting to go back to the high court and seek relief there.
Mint
11 hours ago
- Mint
Bombay HC's BIG rule ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi: Idols of up to 6 feet height must be immersed in artificial water bodies
The Bombay High Court on Thursday said all all idols of up to six feet height must be immersed in artificial water bodies starting from Ganesh festival this year. The HC's order comes months ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi, which is going to be celebrated from August 26 this year. The Bombay HC's new rule will be applicable on all idols made of plaster of Paris and more than 6 feet in height. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said this order is also applicable to Durga idols that will be immersed in early October this year. Ganesh Chaturthi is touted as the biggest festival in Maharashtra, while thousands of people also celebrate Durga Puja in the state. The division bench noted that in 2024, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had made around 204 water tanks for 1.95 lakh Ganesh idols that were under 5 feet. However, only 85,000 such idols were immersed in these tanks , while the remaining were immersed in natural water bodies. The Maharashtra government on Wednesday submitted an affidavit in the Bombay High Court stating that domestic Ganesh idols of up to 5 feet height will be immersed in artificial ponds. Large idols of Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav Mandals will be immersed in the traditional manner in the sea, it said. This move will pave the way for the immersion of large Ganesh idols in the sea. The ban on POP (Plaster of Paris) posed a serious threat to the livelihoods of lakhs of sculptors and jeopardised the economy of a major traditional industry, the state government said. However, the Bombay HC was not impressed by the submission, ruling that idols up to 6 feet must be immersed in artificial tanks or ponds. "This Court has to make an endeavour that the impact of immersion of idols on environment is made bare minimal... Thus, instead of 5 feet, idols up to 6 feet be compulsorily immersed in artificial tanks," Chief Justice Aradhe said. Ganeshotsav, also known as Ganesh Chaturthi. Ganesh Chaturthi is a 10-day festival that continues until Anantha Chaturdashi. This year, Ganesh Chaturthi will begin on Wednesday, August 27th. This festival is also known as Vinayak Chaturthi or Vinayak Chavithi. During Ganesh Chaturthi, Lord Ganesha is worshipped as the god of new beginnings and the remover of obstacles.
India.com
a day ago
- India.com
Why Do Indian Filmmakers Continue To Embrace Pakistan Despite Hostility? DNA Explained
Even as tensions between India and Pakistan remain high with trade, sports, and even airspace connectivity severed, some Indian filmmakers appear unshaken in their affection for Pakistan. This has raised eyebrows among many who question the rationale behind such cross-border creative alliances. Recently, singer-actor Amrinder Gill's film Chal Mera Putt 4 has come under scrutiny. The film's release in India has been delayed as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has yet to clear it, reportedly due to the inclusion of several Pakistani actors, most notably Iftikhar Thakur. Thakur, a controversial Pakistani comedian and actor, has previously made derogatory remarks about the Indian Army and mocked Indian filmmakers who gave him work. His statements, filled with anti-India sentiment, have triggered public outrage in India. In today's DNA, Zee News managing editor, Rahul Sinha, explained why do Indian filmmakers continue to embrace Pakistan despite hostility? Watch Today's Full Episode भारत-पाकिस्तान में फिर 'कुछ बड़ा होने वाला है'! अखिलेश के 'मस्जिद मार्ग' का विश्लेषण जनरल मुनीर का गुरूर..कैसे 'मिट्टी में धंस गया'? देखिए #DNA LIVE Rahul Sinha के साथ#ZeeLive #ZeeNews #DNAWithRahulSinha @RahulSinhaTV — Zee News (@ZeeNews) July 23, 2025 The controversy echoes a similar incident involving Diljit Dosanjh, whose film faced backlash for prioritising a Pakistani actress. Both actors, despite being celebrated faces in Punjabi cinema, are now being criticised for repeatedly collaborating with Pakistani talent. Critics argue that filmmakers like Gill and Dosanjh, under the pretext of artistic freedom and cultural harmony, are indirectly encouraging those who insult India and its armed forces. The broader concern is whether financial incentives are being prioritised over national sentiment. Some voices, including actor Binnu Dhillon, have taken a firm stand against working with those who openly disrespect India. They question the moral integrity of supporting artists like Thakur, who feed off Indian audiences while ridiculing the country. As the debate intensifies, one thing is clear: while art may transcend borders, respect for the nation and its defenders cannot be compromised. Filmmakers must decide whether national dignity is worth sacrificing for box-office profits.
