In a significant legal development for the Indian film industry, the Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to evaluate serious allegations levelled against the blockbuster sequel, Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
The court’s directive follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Deepak Kumar, a Head Constable with the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), who claims that the Ranveer Singh-starrer compromises the country’s security by disclosing sensitive operational details.
The petition, filed through advocate Jagjeet Singh, argues that Dhurandhar: The Revenge crosses the line between creative license and national safety. The petitioner contends that the film, while fictional, exposes:
- Tactical Procedures: Detailed depictions of real-life military and intelligence-gathering protocols.
- Sensitive Locations: Explicit portrayals of locations and infrastructure that mirror actual security installations.
- Operational Patterns: Alleged revelations of methodologies used by agencies like the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which the petitioner argues could be exploited by hostile entities to identify Indian operational patterns.
The plea further claims that the movie’s explicit nature has already had tangible consequences, allegedly compromising the safety of undercover agents and placing foreign authorities on high-alert regarding Indian intelligence activities.
The Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, navigated a cautious path during the hearing. While the Bench recognized that cinema serves as a medium for entertainment and artistic expression, it firmly emphasized that the “impact of the movie can’t be denied.”
“Even if the movie is a work of fiction and imagination and is made for entertainment purposes, the impact of the movie can’t be denied,” the Bench observed. The Court stressed that allegations involving the Official Secrets Act and national defense protocols are not matters that can be dismissed outright.
Beyond seeking a stay on the film’s screening and the revocation of its CBFC certification, the petitioner has urged the Court to mandate the framing of a formal “Spy Movies Protocol.” This proposed framework aims to establish guidelines for filmmakers to ensure that the depiction of espionage, tactical operations, and covert identities does not mirror classified military procedures or threaten national integrity.
Rather than issuing an immediate stay on the film’s theatrical or OTT broadcast, the High Court has adopted a balanced approach. It has disposed of the PIL by directing the MIB and the CBFC to treat the petition as a formal representation.
Under this order, the authorities are tasked with:
- Conducting a Thorough Review: Assessing the specific scenes and protocols cited in the PIL.
- Making an Informed Decision: Determining whether the film violates provisions of the Official Secrets Act or other security-related mandates.
- Communication: Providing the petitioner with a formal response regarding their decision and any corrective measures deemed necessary.
This development sets a crucial precedent, highlighting the growing intersection between cinematic realism and the responsibility of creators toward national security. As the blockbuster franchise continues its global run, all eyes are now on the Ministry’s response, which could potentially redefine how intelligence-themed films are reviewed and certified in India.
Disclaimer: This report covers ongoing legal proceedings regarding a public allegation. The makers of Dhurandhar, Aditya Dhar or Jio Studios have not yet issued a public response to these specific judicial developments.
