SC quashes ‘ban’ on Nanak...but Punjab won't screen film

The fate of

Nanak Shah Fakir

, which is based on the life and work of Guru Nanak, has been in limbo since 2015. The film, which has been ‘approved’ and later ‘banned’ by the

Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee

(

SGPC

) and the

Akal Takht

, was cleared for release by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with the Court stating that the

CBFC

’s nod was “final”, and that “the freedom of expression of an artiste can’t be curtailed by a group of private people”. The film will now be released on Friday as planned - unless it runs into fresh legal or administrative roadblocks.
The film was initially released in April 2015, and, according to reports, both the SGPC and the Akal Takht had given their nod to it at that point of time. The film’s producer

Harinder Sikka

had said that the Akal Takht Jathedar, Gurbachan Singh, had called the film “a fine example of the promotion of the Sikh faith”. However, four days after its release, the film was withdrawn by Sikka following protests and opposition by both the bodies. Later,

Gurbachan Singh

denied approving the film, adding that they had only appreciated the project before the movie was made. The SGPC subsequently formed an eight-member sub-committee to ‘review’ the movie.
In 2016, the SGPC finally ‘approved’ the film for release, and said, “We have no objection in granting you permission to release the movie Nanak Shah Fakir.” Last month, the SGPC even sent letters asking the film to be shown in schools and to facilitate the film’s promotion. On March 28, it issued a statement backing the film.
However, after protests from some members of the Sikh community, the committee withdrew its support the very next day, saying that it would now not allow the film’s release. The Akal Takht soon followed suit and ‘banned’ the film, after which Sikka moved the Supreme Court.
Speaking to us after the court cleared the film for release on Tuesday, Sikka said, “The Supreme Court has made it clear that individuals cannot decide the fate of films. It is the CBFC that makes the decision, and even state governments cannot interfere in its release. The film will be released, but it is up to the distributors to decide how to do it.” Commenting on the flip-flop, Sikka said, “I don’t know why the SGPC or the Akal Takht have withdrawn their approval, despite clearing the film at every stage in 2016. As recent as March 22 this year, the whole of SGPC was on stage in Mumbai for the film’s trailer launch by Akshay Kumar. Their collective decision was in favour of the film. What happened at the individual level, I don’t know. Akal Takht and SGPC are institutions which should not be seen as changing their stance last minute. I have worked with them closely at every stage for one year, and to show the Guru as a light form was their decision too. As for portraying his family as humans, only the Guru was godly, not his family.”
Manjit Singh, Secretary, SGPC, disowns earlier validations and asserts, “There is much talk about the Akal Takht Jathedar Gurbachan Singh issuing an appreciation letter to the film in 2015. However, no one really knows that the actual appreciation in that letter was for the producer and not the film.” On his part, Gurbachan Singh says, “There was never a clearance for the film in its present state. The objections we had against the film back then, about giving a human representation to the family of Guru Nanak, remain. Ordinary actors cannot portray the Guru’s family members.” As for the SGPC having ‘cleared’ the film in 2016 after a sub-committee was formed to review it, Gurbachan Singh says, “Then ask those who cleared it at that time, and those who were helming the SGPC then. We never cleared the film.”

Whether they ‘cleared’ the film or not is irrelevant, as per the SC order. Coming on the heels of the Padmaavat controversy, which was a similar case of religious bodies opposing a film despite it being cleared by the CBFC, the ‘ban’ highlights the unofficial censorship filmmakers are facing. In Padmaavat’s context, the SC had stated that maintaining law and order and ensuring a smooth release was the state’s responsibility. In this case too, the SC has declared that no private bodies can ‘ban’ a film and that the mandate rests with the CBFC or a superior authority.