During the hearing, Sharma raised the issue of songs of the movie being released without a certification from the CBFC. He alleged that part of the Deepika Padukone-Ranveer Singh-Shahid Kapoor starrer was released despite the fact that CBFC had returned application, seeking grant of certification for the movie, to the filmmakers as it was incomplete.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing one of the respondents, countered the submissions and said the film’s promo was released after it got the requisite CBFC approval.
When the petitioner repeatedly alleged that part of the film has been released, the bench observed, “Censor Board has a definite role. They will see the guidelines which are there in the Act (Cinematograph Act). That is their duty. We are on other things. Should the Supreme Court intervene in stopping a movie?”
The petitioner alleged “character assassination” of Rani Padmavati in the film and the CBFC would not go into these aspects.
The bench then elaborated on the functioning of CBFC in certifying a film and said “CBFC is a statutory body. How can the court injunct a statutory body not to exercise its duty?” It also said the court cannot direct the CBFC to decide a matter in a particular manner as it was for the board to take a call.
Salve told the court that CBFC had sought from the filmmakers some documents which they have already filed and whatever was being shown at present has got the approvals.Sharma had approached the court seeking a direction for removal of all scenes of alleged “character assassination” of Queen Padmavati from the movie before its release.Viacom 18, the makers of the film, had earlier said that they have deferred the movie's release which was originally scheduled on Dec. 1.
The set of the movie was vandalised twice – in Jaipur and Kolhapur – and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali was roughed up by members of Karni Sena during the Jaipur schedule of the film earlier this year.