DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Careers Advertise with us Classifieds
Gen Z Speak Up !
Grand Independence Day Sale Know More
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

‘Satluj’ takedown reaches HC, plea seeks restoration

Petitioner argues abrupt removal of film curtails public’s right to receive information and artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Diljit Dosanjh-starrer Satluj was removed from OTT platform ZEE5.
Advertisement

A petition has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions for the restoration of the film “Satluj” on ZEE5 platform after it was made unavailable for viewing in India.

Advertisement

The plea has been filed by Sharwan Singh, who has contended that no statutory order, judicial direction or other lawful authority prohibiting the exhibition of the film has been disclosed.

Advertisement

According to the petition, “Satluj”, earlier titled “Punjab ’95”, is based on the life and work of late human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. The plea states that the film was released on ZEE5 on July 3 and was subsequently made unavailable in India on July 5.

Advertisement

The petitioner argued that the abrupt removal of the film curtailed the public’s right to receive information and artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and also deprived paid subscribers of access to content that had been lawfully made available on the platform.

The petition further stated that the main questions arising for the court’s consideration included whether the abrupt withdrawal of a duly released and lawfully exhibited feature film from an OTT platform — in the absence of any disclosed statutory order, judicial direction or authority of law — violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Advertisement

Another issue raised was whether the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) included the right of the public to receive information and to access and view a lawfully released cinematographic work, and whether such right could be curtailed except by a procedure established by law. The petition also questioned whether any executive authority, directly or indirectly, could compel, induce or otherwise secure the withdrawal of a lawfully released cinematographic work without issuing a reasoned order traceable to any statutory provision.

Read what others can’t with The Tribune Premium

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts