[ad_1]
A group of judges SA Bobde, S. Abdul Nazeer and Indira Banerjee initially expressed reluctance to receive the LIP tabled by Congress Spokesperson Aman Panwar and asked him to appear before a high court. Advocate AM Singhvi, who appeared for the petitioner, however, claimed that it would be pointless to move HC, as the high courts of Delhi and Bombay have already refused to interfere in the petitions filed by the petitioner. Other people and pleaded in court to consider the matter.
Singhvi said that the party had also been brought before the electoral commission, but he took no action and the party has no choice but to seize the supreme court. The bench, later, listed the case for the April 8 hearing.
In its motion, the party alleged that the four producers of the film had deep and ubiquitous links with the BJP and that three of them were not mere sympathizers or supporters, but a map bearing official members of the party ".
"It became inevitably clear that the film was nothing more than a propaganda vehicle to be projected for broadcast in coordination with the upcoming elections." The singular and flagrant motive that emerged was clear. The film was motivated by little or no artistic inspiration and was designed to manipulate, influence and impress viewers and voters in the upcoming elections, "says the petition.
Singhvi stated that the release of the film would harm equal opportunities in the elections and also stated in court that the chairman of the Central Board of Film Certification had also worked for the film and that To approve the film would be for CBFC to act as judge in its own cause.
"This is not even a substitute advertisement, but a blatant advertising campaign of the BJP. In reality, it is not a problem. innocent film released and produced as an artistic project.This is a provable case of political party using its resources so as to circumvent the electoral laws on paid advertising, "says the petition.
Source link