Wednesday,
August 22, 2001, Chandigarh, India
|
 |
| M A I
N N E W S |
HC dismisses plea to ban ‘Gadar’
Yoginder Gupta
Tribune News ServiceChandigarh, August 21
“The preacher of a faith and the producer of a film have to respect each other’s sensitivities. The diversities have to be accepted. The society has to recognise that the artiste has the right to articulate. The painter can have his own perception. A film-maker is entitled to his freedom. In the same measure as the religious man is entitled to his religiosity. “This is not to say that the religious sentiments of every section of society have not to be respected. In fact, the human sensitivity and psyche have always to be kept in view. And we must not see a devilish design in every deed. Only then we can achieve the ultimate goal of a secular and cohesive community.” This is how a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice Ashutosh Mohunta struck a balance between the right to freedom to profess a particular religion and the right to freedom of expression, both enshrined in the Constitution, while dismissing a writ petition seeking a ban on the film, “Gadar”, here today. The petition was filed by Sant Eshar Singh through his counsel, Dr M.S. Rahi, alleging that “Gadar” has scenes, which offend the religious susceptibilities of the Sikhs. The film maligns the religious symbol of the Sikh faith, tradition and defames the Amritdhari Sikhs and Nihangs. The petitioner contended that the Sikh women did not put the vermilion mark on their forehead or in the hair nor did they wear a “mangalsutra” (as shown in the film). Writing for the Bench, Mr Justice Gupta said all religions teach us benevolence, charity, compassion, forgiveness, return good for evil, show mercy, and, above all, every religion taught us to be tolerant. “Sikhism recognises these principles. It is known that the Khalsa was raised to ‘defy religious intolerance, religious persecution and political inequality...Those who groveled in the dust rose proud, defiant and invincible in the form of Khalsa. They bore all sufferings and un-nameable torture cheerfully and unflinchingly’... Sikhism affirms that ‘every person is; precious to God. The langar is open to every one regardless of caste, creed, colour or sex.’ Equality and service to society are the known tenets of the Sikh religion.” However, the Bench observed that despite the abiding faith in religious principles, “we have a world that has crucified Christ, assassinated Abraham Lincoln, killed Kennedy and murdered Mahatma Gandhi. This is so because the society has its share of the deviant and the devout. There is always a conflict between the two. But it has to be tolerated. This is the reason for the acceptance of religion. Everyone has the right to profess. Also the duty to tolerate.” Mr Justice Gupta said the need to
synthesis right with duty had
been historically recognised. The French Convention of 1793, he said, recorded that “common happiness” was the aim of society. Similarly the basic purpose of law was to ensure “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. The Bench said in the present era of reform and resistance, absolute freedom was impossible. “So is the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion. It must be remembered that we cannot carry our religious beliefs on the palm of the hand. We cannot complain that every blow of the breeze bruises our religious susceptibilities. Tolerance being one of the basic tenets of every religion, we have to share and accept the diversities of opinion.” The Bench, which discussed each of five pictures showing scenes from the film and produced by the petitioner as evidence in support of his allegations, found itself unable to uphold the petitioner’s claim. It said: “Every section of society has its share of deviants. Who can claim perfection? Is there a sect or section of society, which can claim that none amongst them has violated a religious tenet? If not, what sin has the producer of the film committed? Has he shown on the screen more than what the society might see in the streets? We think not. “The photographs produced by the petitioner indicate that in all probability, the film depicts the acts of a mob. Not those of the Sikh community as such. On the basis of the pictures, the petitioner should have no cause to complain.” Referring to the contention of the petitioner that the Sikhs had been defamed by the film which showed a Muslim girl wearing a vermilion mark and who was called a “Sikhni”, Mr Justice Gupta pointed that that Dr Rahi admitted that the boy was shown to be in love with the girl. The boy put a mark on her forehead with his blood. About the “mangalsutra”, the Judge asked: “Is this an evidence of broadmindedness of the Sikhs or an effort to defame them? Is the producer not portraying the magnificance of pure love that transcends the narrow bounds of caste and creed? And then, am I defamed merely because I am shown wearing a turban? Or with a steel ‘kara (a bangle)’ around the wrist? I think not.” Dismissing the petition in limine, the Judges said that they were satisfied that “Gadar”
gave no ground to the petitioner to grumble and he had no cause for complaint.
|
