INTRODUCTION:

In Sanyukt Ahir Regiment Morcha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, the Delhi High Court addressed a public interest litigation seeking to halt or modify the release of the upcoming film 120 Bahadur, starring Farhan Akhtar and based on the historic 1962 Battle of Rezang La. The petitioners, a charitable trust and several individuals claiming to be descendants of the Rezang La martyrs, approached the Court alleging that the film distorted key historical facts, undermined the collective valour of the 120 soldiers who fought in the battle, and improperly projected Major Shaitan Singh Bhati as the sole protagonist under a fictionalized portrayal. They contended that the film’s certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was improper and sought specific reliefs, including the change of film title to “120 Vir Ahir,” inclusion of the names of all 120 soldiers, insertion of factual corrections, and enforcement of statutory guidelines governing historical representations in cinema. The producers of the film, Excel Entertainment, through counsel assured the Court that all 120 soldiers’ names were already included in the tribute section displayed at the end of the film. After considering submissions from both sides, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain permitted the film’s nationwide theatrical release scheduled for November 21, while granting limited directions ensuring that the names and regiments of all soldiers are appropriately represented, especially in the OTT release.

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

The petitioners argued that the depiction of the Rezang La battle in 120 Bahadur was historically inaccurate and that its portrayal singularly glorified Major Shaitan Singh while erasing the collective identity, sacrifice, and contribution of all 120 Ahir soldiers from the C Company of 13 Kumaon Regiment. They claimed that the fictionalised name “Bhati” used for Major Shaitan Singh and the portrayal of other soldiers as secondary or insignificant violated statutory provisions such as Section 5B(1)-(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Guideline 2(xvii) of the 1991 Certification Guidelines, which prohibit distortions of history. They further argued that Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, prohibiting imputations against deceased persons causing hurt to their relatives’ sentiments, was violated, since the alleged distortion could injure the dignity and legacy of the martyrs and wound the sentiments of their families. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to halt release until corrections were made and a disclaimer was inserted, and pressed particularly for the inclusion of all 120 names within the film as a non-negotiable mark of respect. They initially pursued a change in the movie’s title to reflect the community identity of the Ahir soldiers but subsequently stated they were not pressing this relief at this stage. In response, counsel for the film’s producers submitted that the petition was unjustified and premature, as the film had already been granted certification by CBFC after due evaluation. It was argued that creative expression deserves judicial restraint unless clear violations of law are evident. The producers clarified that all 120 martyrs’ names were already included in the end credits through an illustrative tribute displayed as a visual panel, ensuring honour and recognition. They argued that the request for name change was unreasonable and oppressive, particularly given the proximity to the scheduled release date. The producers emphasized that films often portray historical events through a narrative lens and cannot be expected to satisfy every interpretative demand. They also maintained that the portrayal did not distort history or defame any soldier, and that the petitioners’ grievances were subjective perceptions rather than legal infractions. The CBFC, through its stance, affirmed that the film had passed certification in accordance with statutory guidelines, and that no procedural irregularity existed in granting approval. The respondents collectively urged that public release should not be obstructed without concrete evidence of legal breach.

COURT’S JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court, after hearing all parties, declined to interfere with the nationwide theatrical release of 120 Bahadur scheduled for November 21 and permitted the film to be screened across India. The bench noted the specific representation made by the film’s producers that the names of all 120 soldiers who fought at Rezang La were already included in the end credits as a visual tribute, which addressed one of the principal concerns raised by the petitioners. The Court observed that as the petitioners were not pressing the prayer for a title change at this stage, no consideration was required on that point. The Court held that directing such a significant alteration so close to the release date would be unjustified and disproportionate, particularly when the CBFC had certified the film and the producers had complied with essential obligations of representation. Importantly, the Court directed the petitioner organization to first watch the film upon its release and verify whether all 120 soldiers’ names were indeed featured as asserted. The Court clarified that if the petitioners, upon viewing, found that any soldier’s name or regiment details were missing, the film producers must incorporate such corrections in the OTT release version. The Court further made clear that only factual details such as soldiers’ names, regiments, and units could be mandated for accuracy, but the Court would not exercise creative control or interfere with cinematic storytelling. The bench acknowledged the sensitivity of the Rezang La battle in India’s military history and the significance of correctly representing the sacrifices of the soldiers but reiterated that film-making involves creative interpretation, which courts should avoid stifling unless clear and deliberate distortion is proven. The Court also noted that the statutory allegations raised by the petitioners concerning Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act and Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita lacked adequate foundation at this stage, because the film had not yet released and the alleged distortions had not been substantiated through viewing. On the question of OTT corrections, the Court emphasized that while theatrical release would not be held back, factual accuracy in future versions could be ensured without infringing on artistic freedom. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition with measured, balanced directions—allowing the release to proceed as scheduled while safeguarding historical integrity through mandated verification and potential corrections in subsequent releases.