SC rejects plea to halt 'Mahaprabhu Jagannath' release, upholds artistic freedom

The Supreme Court refused to halt Mahaprabhu Jagannath, saying artistic creativity cannot be curbed because of objections to creative works.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly defended artistic creativity, cautioning against attempts to stifle literature, art and culture merely because creative works depict Hindu Gods and Goddesses, as it refused to interfere with the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath.

Devotees participate in the Rath Yatra festival in Puri. The Supreme Court upheld its earlier order allowing the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath. (PTI)

A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan dismissed an application filed by the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration seeking modification of the court’s July 17 order that had permitted the release of the Central Board of Film Certification-certified movie after the conclusion of the Rath Yatra.

“We have already passed an order (on July 17) allowing the film’s release. If we pass an order, all televised series on Ramayana and Mahabharata will stop,” said the bench, repeatedly underscoring during the hearing that courts cannot curb artistic expression because a handful of people object to a creative work.

Creativity cannot be stifled

“This will no way come in the way of devotion and reverence to Lord Jagannath. If there are such kinds of sensitivities and two-three people go on filing writ petitions, we will pass an order that in respect of Hindu Gods, Goddesses and mythology, let there be no art form in India. We can pass so in the interest of preserving peace…We don’t want such kind of thing. This is creativity. Every person has creativity,” remarked the bench.

Bench cites diverse retellings of epics

Emphasising that Indian traditions themselves accommodate multiple retellings of epics and mythology, the bench further said: “Just because two-three sensitive people in the country are filing these cases, we will pass an extreme order that there shall be no creativity, no literature. Every place has a story of Ramayana and Mahabharata in its own way.”

The court also noted that animation was primarily intended for children and lamented that artistic expression could not be held “to ransom”.

Rejecting the modification plea, the bench said: “We heard the advocate general. We are not inclined to modify the order. The application is dismissed.”