The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a petition seeking the removal of allegedly objectionable scenes and dialogues from the Sunny Deol-starrer Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Takk. The legal challenge specifically objected to sequences depicting widespread corruption and unethical practices within healthcare establishments.
The petition was filed by Nachiketa Bhatia, Vice President of the Legal Cell for All India Doctors, and Dhruv Chauhan, a medical professional and National Spokesperson for the Indian Medical Association. The grievance focused on promotional material, particularly the movie's teaser, which they argued portrayed physical violence against doctors, nurses, and other healthcare personnel as justified or heroic behavior.
A bench comprising acting chief justice Nitin Sambre and justice Sanjay Sharma pointed out that a similar petition had already been filed on behalf of the medical community and was currently pending before a single-judge bench. Consequently, the court concluded there was no justification for launching parallel proceedings addressing the exact same subject matter.
During the proceedings, the court emphasized that avoiding a multiplicity of legal actions was paramount when another court was already reviewing the issue. The central government's counsel had previously apprised the court of the pending litigation and noted that the official certification process for the film remained underway.
The initial petition highlighted concerns that the movie's promotional content featured dialogues alleging financial exploitation through excessive billing, unnecessary diagnostic tests, and commission-driven prescriptions. The complainants argued that these narratives create a damaging impression of systemic corruption and undermine public trust in medical institutions.
The legal filing maintained that portraying healthcare workers in such a manner, combined with the apparent glorification of violence against them, warranted careful examination by competent statutory authorities to protect the safety of medical personnel. Despite these arguments, the high court chose not to intervene with the new public interest litigation due to the existing proceedings.