Some arguments during the hearing of the Supreme Court in 'Padmavat', read what the arguments

The Supreme Court cleared the path of release in the controversial film Padmavat on 25th January across the country. The apex court on Thursday stayed the notifications and orders prohibiting the display of films in these states from Rajasthan and Gujarat. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, and Justice AM Khanvilkar and Justice D.V. Chandrachud also banned any other state from issuing orders or notification to ban the film's performance. The bench said that it is the responsibility of the states to maintain law and order. During the hearing, the Chief Justice said, "When the film's performance is stopped in this way, my constitutional conscience draws me."

Arguments by lawyer Harish Salve on behalf of film producer

Senior producer Harish Salve and former AG Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of the producer and director of the film lobbied, while ASG Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state banning states, demanded the banning of law and order. Harish Salve argued that the censor board gave the certificate for the release of the film all over the country. How can a state bane on this? Salve argued that the censor board certifies the films under the Central Act, Cinematograph Act, 1952, then a state can refuse to accept the certificate of the censor board. If this happens then it would be a violation of the federal structure. Salve cited Article 19 (1) (A) in the Constitution citing the freedom of expression, saying that banning film is a violation of the constitution.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar saw Bhansali with 'Padmavat', 'This is the pride of Rajputs'

Tushar Mehta, who sought the ban on behalf of the states, argued that the law system is the responsibility of the states and the state has to see that law and order is not a problem and the release of this film can be a problem of law and order. Tushar Mehta, while citing the Censor Board's certificate, said that while censor board certificates to the film, it does not pay attention to the fact that the release of the movie can be a problem to the law system?

Tushar Mehta said that the historical facts have been tampered with in this movie. On this, Harish Salve read the disclaimer shown in the film in front of the court, which states that 'It is based on a fictional story. It has nothing to do with history. Salve said so far in the court that 'one day I would like to argue that artists should also have the right to tamper with history.'

When everyone broke up in court room

On this, Tushar Mehta said, 'It can not be so. You can not show Mahatma Gandhi while drinking whiskey! Salve said, 'But this history will not be tampered with.' On this, all the people present in the court laugh. The advocate, appearing for Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana, had sought the hearing for the next week but the court ignored it. The Supreme Court remarks during the hearing - "If a film like Bandit Queen can get green signal from the Supreme Court ......"

When the Padmavat film producer's lawyer Harish Salve said that tampering with history is also the freedom of expression, Tushar Mehta opined that if anyone tampered with history and told that Gandhiji had whisked it, how could he tolerate it? Can do. The Supreme Court said that we are worried about how the film was banned by the executive while the censor board gave the certificate of release of the film.