Title: Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chishtiya Khuddam Khwaja Saheb (Syedzadgan), Dargah Sharif, Ajmer vs. Union Of India and others
Decided on: 03rd July, 2023
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9631/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE Justice INDERJEET SINGH
Introduction:
The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9631/2023 was presented before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur by Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chishtiya Khuddam Khwaja Saheb (Syedzadgan), Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, represented by its Secretary, Mr. Syed Mohammad Tariq Chishty. The petitioner sought legal remedies against the release of a film titled ‘Ajmer 92’ and requested the constitution of a committee to ensure that the film did not contain any defamatory or derogatory content related to Dargah Sharif Ajmer and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisty, a revered Sufi saint.
Facts:
The petitioner, Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chishtiya Khuddam Khwaja Saheb, expressed concerns about the release of the film ‘Ajmer 92’ scheduled for release on 14th July 2023. The petitioner contended that the film might contain content that was defamatory or derogatory to Dargah Sharif Ajmer, sacred symbols, buildings, mosques, and the rituals of the Dargah, or any other objects/items directly or indirectly related to Dargah Sharif Ajmer and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisty.
In light of these concerns, the petitioner requested the court to issue a writ or order directing various respondents, including the Union of India, the Central Board of Film Certification, the State of Rajasthan, and the film’s production companies, to take necessary actions. The petitioner sought to ban the film’s release in theaters and on OTT platforms, constitute a committee to review the film’s content, and delete any defamatory or derogatory content related to Dargah Sharif Ajmer and Khwaja Moinuddin Chisty from the film and its promotions. Additionally, the petitioner sought orders for the removal of offending content from websites or online platforms and directions for law enforcement agencies to obtain information related to the content.
Judgment:
Upon reviewing the records and the contentions made by the petitioner, the court observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available, namely, the revision process before the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to address their grievances regarding the film’s content.
Consequently, the court held that the petitioner’s case did not warrant interference by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by Yagya Agarwal
