Mahaprabhu Jagannath Film Row: Supreme Court Defends Artistic Freedom, Clears Release Of Animated Film

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 29) refused to halt the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan dismissed an application from the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration seeking to modify the court's July 17 release order.

The court strongly defended artistic freedom during the proceedings. Previously, the court had upheld a temporary stay on the movie, clearing its release after the Rath Yatra festival.

Court defends artistic expression

As reported by Hindustan Times, the bench repeatedly underscored that courts cannot control artistic expression due to objections from a few individuals. The justices cautioned against attempts to restrict literature, art and culture merely based on the depiction of Hindu deities.

"We have already passed an order (on July 17) allowing the film’s release. If we pass an order, all televised series on Ramayana and Mahabharata will stop," the bench said.

"This will no way come in the way of devotion and reverence to Lord Jagannath. If there are such kinds of sensitivities and two-three people go on filing writ petitions, we will pass an order that in respect of Hindu Gods, Goddesses and mythology, let there be no art form in India. We can pass so in the interest of preserving peace…We don’t want such kind of thing. This is creativity. Every person has creativity," the court added.

The court also emphasised that Indian traditions accommodate multiple retellings of epics and mythology, noting that the animation is primarily intended for children. The justices lamented that artistic expression cannot be held "to ransom".

"Just because two-three sensitive people in the country are filing these cases, we will pass an extreme order that there shall be no creativity, no literature. Every place has a story of Ramayana and Mahabharata in its own way," the bench said.

The bench concluded the hearing after considering arguments from the advocate general and formally dismissed the plea.

"We heard the advocate general. We are not inclined to modify the order. The application is dismissed," the court said.