ALSO READGauhati Bar Association to boycott Chief Justice's court Gangrape case:Danish woman appears in court, records statement Sreesanth starts nets after getting clean chit by Delhi court Awaiting court's word,Greepeace says it was a humiliating year Govt accuses Greenpeace of "forum shopping"; HC favours NGO
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw issued notice to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and sought its reply on the petition moved by the wife of late Shubhradeep Chakravorty, who made the documentary 'En Dino Muzaffarnagar'.
Appearing for petitioner Meera Chaudhary, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the judge that the high court had in December last year sent back the film to the Board for review.
Thereafter on January 9 this year, CBFC had issued a show cause notice to the film maker saying the documentary was not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, but could be shown to an adult audience after making some deletions and modifications, including disclaimers, Bhushan said.
The Board had also sought that a no-objection certificate be obtained from the Animal Welfare Board of India and others, he said.
Bhushan submitted that the January 9 order of CBFC was complied with and thereafter, Chaudhary had again approached the Board in March for grant of 'A' certificate, but till date she has received no response from the authority.
He said several representations were made to the Board from March till August, but no reply was received and the film has not yet been issued an 'A' certificate.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 19.
The high court on December 9 last year had sent the documentary back to the censor board for a review to see if a certificate for its public screening can be granted by deleting any scene found objectionable by it.
The court had directed CBFC to pass a "speaking order" by giving reasons for deletion of any portion of the documentary that it finds objectionable.
The earlier petition had alleged that no detailed reasoning was given by CBFC while denying certification to the documentary.
The petition had submitted that neither the censor board nor the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) had said in their orders which portions of the documentary on the 2013 riots were objectionable or violative of the guidelines.