Calcutta High Court dismisses plea by Gopal Patha’s grandson over his depiction in ‘The Bengal Files’. Details on the judgment and key legal insights.
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition objecting to the alleged defamatory depiction of iconic freedom fighter Gopal Patha in filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri’s upcoming movie.
High Court Refuses to Entertain RTI-Based Plea Over Movie Content
In a significant decision on Monday, September 8, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the grandson of freedom fighter Gopal Chandra Mukherjee, popularly known as Gopal Patha, concerning his alleged portrayal in the yet-to-be-released Hindi film The Bengal Files, directed by Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held that the petition had no substantial legal ground and appeared to misuse Right to Information (RTI) provisions for a matter outside its scope. “The petitioner intended to obtain certain information under RTI,” Justice Sinha stated in the judgment. “This Court is not inclined to entertain such a writ petition that seeks to regulate artistic expression without demonstrating a clear case of public mischief or personal harm.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, the grandson of Gopal Patha, claimed that promotional content and early reports on The Bengal Files depict his grandfather in a negative light. Gopal Patha is a historically respected figure from Kolkata, known for organizing defense groups to protect Hindus during the 1946 Direct Action Day riots, a period of severe communal violence.
The petition alleged that Agnihotri’s film “distorts history” and portrays the freedom fighter as an aggressor rather than a community protector. The petitioner claimed this representation was offensive to the family’s legacy and misleading to the public.
He had also reportedly attempted to file RTI queries seeking details about the film’s script, Censor Board clearance status, and historical verification procedures. However, the Court found this approach insufficient to warrant judicial interference at this stage.
Court’s Observations on Artistic Freedom
Justice Sinha reaffirmed the long-standing principle that courts must exercise restraint when it comes to censoring or restraining artistic or cinematic expressions.
“Freedom of speech and expression is a constitutionally protected right under Article 19(1)(a). Unless the portrayal is shown to incite violence or disrupt public order, artistic liberties must be preserved,” she said.
The Court emphasized that pre-release censorship or injunctions based on perceived insult or misrepresentation are not encouraged in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
This aligns with the Supreme Court’s view in previous landmark cases, including S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, which held that the threat of violence is not a valid reason to suppress freedom of expression unless there is a clear and imminent danger.
What Does This Mean for Future Film-Related Petitions?
The Court’s ruling signals a tightening stance against public figures or their descendants using legal means to preemptively challenge films, especially those yet to be publicly released.
Speaking to The Legal Observer, Kolkata-based constitutional lawyer Advocate Rina Das noted:
“This judgment is in line with recent trends that favour freedom of expression. Courts are unwilling to intervene unless clear criminal defamation or incitement can be established. Filmmakers cannot be hauled to court simply for controversial narratives.”
The ruling could influence similar cases across India, where disputes around historical depictions and artistic interpretation often end up in courtrooms.
Vivek Agnihotri’s Response
Director Vivek Agnihotri, who previously helmed The Kashmir Files, is no stranger to legal controversies. Responding to the dismissal via social media, Agnihotri thanked the judiciary for “protecting creative freedom” and reaffirmed his commitment to telling stories “based on true events.”
He added, “The Bengal Files is meant to start conversations about forgotten chapters of Indian history. It is not a biopic or a targeted film.”
You can follow updates and interviews related to the film on The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
Final Thoughts
This case reiterates the courts’ inclination to uphold creative liberties, especially in matters concerning films and artistic expression. It also serves as a reminder that RTI mechanisms are not designed to regulate or intervene in content creation or censorship matters.
The verdict represents an important precedent for both filmmakers and litigants, clearly delineating the scope of judicial intervention in creative disputes.
For more legal news and views, visit The Legal Observer, or check our sections on National and Most Popular legal updates.
Internal Links Embedded:
External Link:
