The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the grandson of freedom fighter Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, popularly known as Gopal Patha, against the release of the film The Bengal Files. The petitioner had alleged that the film projected his grandfather in a derogatory and distorted manner and sought judicial intervention to prevent its release. Justice Amrita Sinha, while dismissing the plea, observed that the petitioner’s grievances did not warrant relief through a writ petition and that the proper course of action lay in statutory remedies available under existing laws.
According to the petitioner, the trailers and teasers of The Bengal Files referred to his grandfather using terms such as “Patha” and “Kasai,” which he claimed were misleading, pejorative, and damaging to the reputation of his family. He contended that Gopal Patha was a respected freedom fighter whose legacy should not be tarnished by cinematic misrepresentation. To protect the honour of his grandfather, the petitioner had approached several authorities including the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the police, and the filmmaker himself.
Despite filing multiple complaints and legal notices, the petitioner stated that no substantial response or action was forthcoming. He submitted an application under the Right to Information Act to the CBFC seeking clarity on whether the film had been reviewed and certified in accordance with law. However, the CBFC did not provide a reply, leading him to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition.
The court examined the submissions and noted that the film had already been released by the time the matter was taken up. Justice Sinha emphasized that the grievance raised by the petitioner was primarily about the lack of response to his RTI application. The law already provides for a clear appeal mechanism if an applicant is dissatisfied with the response, or lack thereof, from a public authority under the RTI Act. Since the petitioner had not availed himself of the statutory remedies prescribed under that Act, the writ petition was deemed not maintainable.
The bench also highlighted that film certification and issues related to portrayal of historical figures in cinema are governed by specific statutory frameworks, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for statutory remedies. The court, therefore, declined to interfere with the release or exhibition of the movie. At the same time, the dismissal of the writ petition does not bar the petitioner from pursuing appropriate legal remedies, whether through an appeal under the RTI Act or by filing a separate proceeding before the competent forum.
With this order, the Calcutta High Court effectively cleared the way for the continued screening of The Bengal Files. The judgment underscores the principle that personal grievances over cinematic depictions cannot be remedied through writ petitions when statutory remedies exist. It also reaffirms the need for petitioners to exhaust alternative remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.