The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Center and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to respond to a plea seeking a specific policy governing spy thrillers, arguing that some scenes in “Dhurandhar: The Revenge” have the potential to reveal information related to the armed forces that could compromise national security.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that there should be some guidelines by the CBFC.
Read also: Noida, Ghaziabad residents receive ‘worse than pigeons’ alert amid intense heatwave
“The film is a work of fiction, made for entertainment purposes, but the impact of the film is undeniable. Suppose a film is made where a character commits suicide and a person in the same situation before the suicide searches for the process… can this be allowed? Even if it is fiction. Tactics of the army or force to meet challenges and secrets are revealed, even if the film is fictional. This should be addressed. There should be some guidelines from the censor board,” he says.
What the applicant said
The court directed the Center and the CBFC to treat the petition filed by Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) functionary, Deepak Kumar, as a representation and take appropriate decision on it.
Read also: ‘Awesome’ moment for Parle stock as price rises 5% after PM Modi gifted Melody to Melony. But there is a twist
Appearing through lawyer Jagjit Singh, Kumar said that the scenes in the film Dhurandhar: Revenge were shot in a way that could reveal information that is detrimental to the security interests of the country.
The petition alleged that the explicit depiction of locations, operations and personalities allegedly modeled after martyred high-ranking officials and officers was so detailed that although the film was presented as fiction, it could adversely affect national security and integrity.
The petition also cited films like Bell Bottom, Mission Majnu, Raazi and Uri: The Surgical Strike, arguing that films depicting defense and military techniques should not put sensitive operational details in the public domain in the name of cinema or fiction.
The court’s response to the petition
The bench said that the points made by the petitioner needed to be addressed.
“In view of the nature of the issue and the concerns raised, we are of the view that the concerns raised by the petitioner need to be considered and addressed. Accordingly, we dispose of the matter with a direction that the competent authority of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the CBFC consider the entire petition as a representation and take appropriate decision on the issues raised therein. The decision and corrective measures, if any, should also be taken on consideration of the representation dated March 23, 2026,” the Supreme Court said.
