38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, November 21, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
CelebStreet

Allahabad HC refuses Anticipatory bail for head of Amazon Prime Video in 'Tandav' case

By Namya Bose      28 February, 2021 12:28 PM      0 Comments
Allahabad HC refuses Anticipatory bail for head of Amazon Prime Video in 'Tandav' case

The Anticipatory bail plea by the head of Amazon Prime Videos in India, Aparna Purohit, was declined by the Allahabad High Court this Thursday ( February 25, 2021).

The petitioner was accused of inappropriate depiction of Uttar Pradesh police personnel, Hindu deities as well as an adverse portrayal of a character playing the PM in the web series Tandav in the ongoing investigation against the show.

Justice Siddarth observed that though Purohit was granted interim protection previously on a similar issue, she is seen not to be co-operative hence the bail on this occasion stands rejected by the HC. 

The Counsel representing the State Government put forth their argument, bringing to notice that a total of 4 criminal complaints and 10 FIRs have been filed all across the country regarding the same web series. It was not just one person being effected, rather several persons all around the country felt offended by the content and therefore lodged such complaints. 

The State counsel added, "It is not a stray case of some over-sensitive individual lodging the FIR against the applicant and other co-accused persons regarding objectionable character and content of the web series in dispute.

The petitioner, Aparna Purohit, in her plea, submitted that the web series was made with no intention of offending anyone or outraging religious sentiments of any community but was a mere work of fiction.

After deliberation, the Court commented, The basic philosophy of the Constitution is to permit the people of all faith to practice, profess and propagate their religion freely without hurting or acting against the people who profess or practice different religious faith than theirs. Therefore, it is an onerous duty of every citizen to respect the feelings of the people of other faith even while making a fiction.

Giving example of Western filmmakers, the Court observed, Western filmmakers have refrained from ridiculing Lord Jesus or the Prophet but Hindi filmmakers have done this repeatedly and still doing this most unabashedly with the Hindu Gods and Goddesses , adding that, the scenes in dispute are likely to cause disturbance and threats to public order. The reference to Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the scenes in dispute in berating light cannot be justified.

The Court showed concern in the rising instances of such tendencies of insensitivity by the Hindu Film Industry, the judgement reading, This tendency on the part of the Hindi film industry is growing and if not curbed in time, it may have disastrous consequences for the Indian social, religious and communal order. There appears to be a design behind such acts on the part of the people who just give a disclaimer in all the films and depict things in the movies which are really religiously, socially and communally offensive in nature. The young generation of the country, which is not much aware of the social and cultural heritage of this country, gradually starts believing what is shown in the movies by the people like the accused persons in the present movie in dispute and thereby, it destroys the basic concept of the survival of this country having tremendous diversity of all kinds as a united nation. The film industry in the south has not indulged in such acts like the Hindi film industry."

The court declared, Her fundamental right of life and liberty cannot be protected by grant of anticipatory bail to her in the exercise of discretionary powers of this Court. 

It was noted that the petitioner has not acted responsible by allowing to stream a web series that seems to go against the Fundamental rights of the majority in the country thus making her open to possible criminal prosecution.



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-rejects-judicially-imposed-timelines-for-president-and-governors-on-bill-assent
Trending Judiciary
SC Rejects Judicially Imposed Timelines For President And Governors On Bill Assent

Supreme Court rules that courts cannot impose timelines or grant deemed assent for Bills, affirming flexibility under Articles 200 and 201 and reinforcing separation of powers.

20 November, 2025 12:43 PM

TOP STORIES

pakistan-transfers-sri-lankan-cricket-teams-security-to-army-after-islamabad-terror-attack
Trending News Updates
Pakistan Transfers Sri Lankan Cricket Team’s Security to Army After Islamabad Terror Attack

Pakistan deploys its Army to protect the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team after the Islamabad terror attack, ensuring top-level security for the ongoing tour.

15 November, 2025 11:52 AM
government-clears-45060-crore-export-support-package-with-new-legal-and-institutional-mechanisms
Trending Executive
Government Clears ₹45,060 Crore Export Support Package With New Legal and Institutional Mechanisms

India approves ₹45,060 crore export support package with new legal and digital mechanisms to boost MSMEs, streamline procedures, and strengthen export capacity.

15 November, 2025 01:35 PM
sc-criticises-mp-high-court-for-granting-release-via-habeas-corpus-says-order-shocks-the-conscience
Trending Judiciary
SC Criticises MP High Court for Granting Release via Habeas Corpus, Says Order “Shocks the Conscience” [Read Order]

SC sets aside MP High Court order releasing an accused via habeas corpus, calling the approach impermissible and a misuse of bail jurisdiction.

17 November, 2025 10:20 AM
family-members-undertaking-cannot-replace-bail-conditions-sins-of-accused-cannot-be-visited-on-relatives-sc
Trending Judiciary
Family Member’s Undertaking Cannot Replace Bail Conditions, ‘Sins of Accused Cannot Be Visited On Relatives’: SC [Read Order]

Supreme Court sets aside bail in 731 kg ganja case, ruling that a family member’s undertaking cannot substitute mandatory conditions under the NDPS Act.

17 November, 2025 10:33 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email