On Tuesday, June 18, the Bombay High Court declared that it had reviewed the film “Hamare Baarah,” starring actor Annu Kapoor, and found nothing objectionable in it concerning the Quran or the Muslim community. The court highlighted that the film aims to uplift women and encourages viewers to think critically rather than blindly follow religious leaders. The bench added that the Indian public is not easily misled.
The division bench, consisting of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla, was addressing several petitions seeking to ban the movie. The petitions claimed that the film inaccurately depicts the lives of married Muslim women as lacking independent rights due to a misinterpretation of “Aayat 223,” a verse from the Quran. The petitioners also argued that the trailer contained dialogue and visuals derogatory to the Islamic faith and married Muslim women in India.
The court acknowledged that the film’s initial trailer was objectionable but noted that it had been removed and all such contentious scenes had been deleted from the movie. The judges described “Hamare Baarah” as a “thinking movie,” suggesting that it was designed to provoke thoughtful engagement rather than mindless entertainment.
The High Court stated, “The movie is in fact for the upliftment of women. The movie has a Maulana misinterpreting the Quran and in fact, one Muslim man objects to the same in the scene. So this shows that people should apply their minds and not blindly follow such Maulanas.”
Initially, the Bombay High Court had postponed the movie’s release but later allowed it after the filmmakers agreed to delete the objectionable portions as directed by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC).
The petitioners then challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. Last week, the Supreme Court stayed the film’s release and instructed the High Court to re-evaluate the matter.
During the hearing, the High Court pointed out several scenes that could be considered objectionable and suggested that the film’s release would be permitted if both parties agreed to certain changes.
Referring to a specific scene where a man kills his daughter in the name of God, the bench remarked, “That may be objectionable. Doing something like this in the name of God may send the wrong signal. Removing this one line will not cause any hindrance to the creative freedom of the maker.”
The bench proposed that if all parties agreed to remove the objectionable parts, consent terms could be submitted, after which the court would issue an order today allowing the film’s release.
Additionally, the court noted that in some instances, it is the man, not the Maulana, who misinterprets the Quran. The judges commented, “It’s different when someone who is a Maulana propagates something like this and an individual does it. Tomorrow if you depict a Pope or a Christian doing it, it’s a different context. If the antagonist gives the same speech, it makes no difference. When a Maulana does it, he interprets the Quran and tells people, which is different.”
However, the court indicated it would impose a cost on the filmmakers for releasing the trailer before receiving certification from the censor board. The bench added that the litigation had provided the movie with unpaid publicity, and thus, the filmmakers would have to pay a cost towards a charity chosen by the petitioners.
