News Hindi

Padmaavat row: SC to hear contempt petitions against state governments, Karni Sena on Monday

The petitions are filed against the state governments for not following the orders of the Supreme Court and maintaining law and order regarding the release of Padmaavat.

With protests against Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Padmaavat turning more violent, a contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the state governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as well as the Rajput Karni Sena for violating the court order that allowed that the film be released in the states.

Padmaavat review: A beautiful costume drama trying too hard to impress

The court on Thursday, agreed to hear two separate petitions against the states and the Karni Sena party and its members. The first petition is filed by Tehseen Poonawalla against the state governments for not following the orders of the Supreme Court and maintaining law and order regarding the release of Padmaavat.

Last week, the Supreme Court had rejected the state governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Gujarat's petition to recall the order of the release. The court had also pulled up the state governments for offering the excuse of a 'law and order' situation to secure the blockade on the film's release. 

Families afraid of booking for Padmaavat: G7, Maratha Mandir owner Manoj Desai

Another petition has been filed by lawyer Vineet Dhanda seeking initiation of procedures against the Rajput Karni Sena and its office bearers for going against the decision of the Supreme Court. 

The bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud stipulated that 'all fresh petitions will be taken up on Monday (29 January).

On 18 January, the Supreme Court had set aside the ban by state governments on Bhansali's film, allowed a free release. The state governments, along with the Rajput Karni Sena, approached the court again on 23 January requesting a recall on the earlier order citing 'a threat to law and order'. However, the court refused to track back and suggested it was the onus of the state governments to maintain security and law and order.