Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses to entertain PIL on restoration of Diljit Dosanjh starrer ‘Satluj’
Court questions locus of petitioner, notes he was neither director nor producer of the film; petitioner seeks to withdraw plea to refile through director
NewsArc Bureau | Chandigarh
The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Thursday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking restoration of singer-actor Diljit Dosanjh’s film ‘Satluj’, which was recently pulled from an OTT platform.
The plea, filed by a resident of Punjab, had challenged the removal of the film as arbitrary and unjustified, urging the Court to direct that it be made available to the public once again.
‘Satluj’ is based on the life and story of prominent Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra and addresses alleged extra-judicial killings by Punjab Police during 1995.
COURT QUESTIONS PETITIONER’S LOCUS
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor questioned the locus standi of the petitioner, pointing out that he was neither the director nor the producer of the film.
Faced with the bench’s queries, the petitioner responded, “We will withdraw it and file it through the director.”
GOVERNMENT, CENSOR BOARD OBJECT
Appearing for the Union Government and the Censor Board, Senior Advocate Dhiraj Jain, assisted by Advocate Shreyansi Verma, objected to the maintainability of the plea. Jain questioned what public cause the petition served and submitted that the petitioner had no locus, having only vaguely referred to the removal order without furnishing details.
Jain further pointed out that the film was taken down on 5 July, and the petition was filed on 8 July without the petitioner first approaching any authority or filing a representation.
When the bench asked whether the film’s director had approached any authority regarding the removal, Jain responded in the negative.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The PIL had contended that the abrupt removal of the film — without disclosure of any statutory order, judicial direction, or lawful authority — curtailed the public’s fundamental right to receive information and artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, besides depriving thousands of subscribers who had already paid for access to the content.
The plea further stated that the film, a biopic based on true events and the life of Jaswant Singh Khalra, does not affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country or threaten public order in any manner.
It also argued that the sudden withdrawal of a film based on documented historical events and the life of a rights activist — whose case has already been adjudicated by constitutional courts — raised serious concerns over transparency and freedom of artistic expression.
With the Court questioning the petitioner’s standing, the plea is now expected to be withdrawn, with the petitioner indicating he would refile the matter through the film’s director.
