The Punjab and Haryana High Court has permitted streaming platform Zee5 to release a documentary about gangsters [Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v Union of India and Others].

The Court observed that those interviewed by the documentary makers did not glorify crime or criminals in their statements.

In a judgment delivered on May 11 and uploaded on court's website this evening, Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that after watching the documentary, he concluded that its message was that the life of a gangster is very short and that it destroys the lives of many people.

"Having watched impugned documentary, I have come to the conclusion that it is not with respect to one particular person whereas it is with respect to multiple gangs and their members. It is not prepared in the form of film whereas it is a mere documentary where material available in public domain has been compiled and few persons such as two retired Policemen, 2-3 Reporters and one Advocate are expressing their opinion. None of them is glorifying crime or criminals," the Court said.

However, while allowing the petition, the Court also recorded Zee's statement that the title of the documentary as well as the trailer or poster would be changed before its release.

"It shall not carry expression ‘Lawrence’ or ‘Bishnoi’ or ‘Punjab’," the Bench said.

The Central government had recently issued an advisory against the release of Lawrence of Punjab, which reportedly focused on the rise of alleged gangster Lawrence Bishnoi. This was after Punjab Police said the documentary may be prejudicial to the public order.

Punjab Congress President Amarinder Singh Raja Warring also had moved a petition before the High Court to challenge the release of the documentary.

The release then got stalled due to the Central government communication advising Zee5 to not go ahead with the release of documentary.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises then moved the Court seeking quashing of the advisory. It stated that its intent was not to glorify criminal activities.

The Court said that advisory to Zee was issued without invoking any particular provision of the Information Technology (IT) Act or any other enactment.

It noted that under the provisions of IT Act, the Union government can block content or information if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign state or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of related cognizable offences.

However, in the present case, the Court noted that though the authorities borrowed words and expressions from Section 69A of the Act, they did not record the satisfaction to the effect that it was expedient and necessary to block the documentary.

"The impugned order is further based upon letter of DGP, Punjab which in turn is based upon two interim orders passed by Division Bench of this Court. Orders passed by this Court are to the effect that interviews of Lawrence Bishnoi shall not be available in the public domain and crime as well as criminals shall not be glorified. In the documentary, there is not even a whisper about aforesaid interviews and there is nothing which can be treated as glorifying crime or criminals, thus, there is no violation of orders of this Court," the Court added.

The Court also said that the Union government failed to point out the violation of any particular clause of the Code of Ethics issued by it. The sole grievance was that the documentary was going to glorify one particular gang or gangster, it added.

However, the Court said that neither any gangster has been glorified nor there is exclusive discussion about a particular gang in the documentary.

The Court also said that since content/information discussed in the documentary is easily available in public domain, it cannot be concluded that its release is going to create problem of public order or public safety. 

The fact that it is documentary and not a movie where artists are playing role cannot be ignored, the Bench added. It also said many movies and web series displaying violence are already available in the public domain.

Thus, the Court concluded that the release of the documentary would not create problem of public order. It is not going to instigate, inspire, promote or entice anyone, the Bench said.

"In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly set aside," the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Amit Jhanji with advocates Samir Rathour, Sanjeev Majra, Angad Makkar and Eliza Gupta represented the petitioner.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, Senior Counsel Dheeraj Jain and advocate Sahil Garg represented the Union of India.

Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi with Additional Advocate General PIP Singh, Additional Advocate General Ferry Sofat and advocate Anisha represented the State of Punjab.

Advocates Ateevraj Sandhu, Rajani, Manveen Dhanjal, Rajwant Kaur and Jalaj Gulyani also appeared for a respondent.

[Read Judgment]