Sunny Deol’s film ‘Suryaa’ gets relief as High Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking stay on its release on November 20: ‘No reason to entertain this’ | Hindi Movie News

Sunny Deol’s upcoming film ‘Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak’ has received some relief ahead of its scheduled theatrical release on November 20, with the Delhi High Court refusing to entertain a fresh Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on its release. The petitioners had objected to the film’s trailer, alleging that it glorifies violence against medical professionals and paints the healthcare sector as broadly corrupt.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma declined to take up the PIL, noting that a similar petition was already pending before a single judge of the High Court. “We see no reason to entertain the present PIL,” the bench observed. The court pointed out that the other petition was scheduled to be heard on November 16 and said there was no reason to initiate parallel proceedings on the same issue. It allowed the petitioners to join the pending matter and also pursue their representation before the concerned authorities.The PIL was filed by Dr Nachiketa Bhatia and Dr Dhruv Chauhan, who challenged the film’s proposed theatrical release. They alleged that the official trailer shows doctors and other medical staff being physically attacked in a manner that presents such violence as heroic. They also objected to what they described as a generalised portrayal of corruption within the medical profession. According to the petitioners, these depictions could fuel hostility towards doctors and potentially lead to law-and-order issues.The plea invoked Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and sought directions to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to review the film. The petitioners asked the authorities to modify or remove scenes and dialogues they considered objectionable. They also sought an interim ex-parte order halting public screenings until the film underwent the required statutory examination.During the hearing on Wednesday, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the issue was sensitive and that a PIL would offer a wider scope of consideration than an individual writ petition. The counsel also raised concerns over the language used in the film’s teaser, claiming it could leave viewers with the impression that relatives of patients could resort to violence against doctors and medical staff.The petitioners told the court that they had already submitted a representation to the authorities and requested that it be considered. The CBFC’s counsel, meanwhile, informed the bench that the film had not yet been certified and that its certification process was still pending. Despite these submissions, the court declined to entertain the fresh PIL, citing the similar petition already before the single judge.