Tandav case: People are entitled to make a satire, says senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi

A still from Tandav

The Tandav controversy continues over a week after Amazon Prime India and creator-showrunner Ali Abbas Zafar issued an apology and removed the contentious scenes from the political drama.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim protection against arrest to Ali, Amazon India creative head Aparna Purohit, producer Himanshu Mehra, actor Mohd Zeeshan Ayyub and writer Gaurav Solanki. Talking to mid-day, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, legal counsel to Amazon India and Purohit, said, "I thought we should have got protection like Arnab Goswami did, but we had a positive [outcome] in the [possible] clubbing of the cases."

Since the Saif Ali Khan and Dimple Kapadia starrer dropped online on January 15, multiple FIRs were filed in six states, including Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar, and at least three cases in Uttar Pradesh. The furore began over a scene that saw Ayyub playing Lord Shiva in a college play, with many accusing the makers of "hurting religious sentiments". Two scenes referencing caste soon came under the scanner. The three sequences have since been omitted.

Ali Abbas Zafar

Rohatgi pointed out that the Supreme Court is considering the petitioners' request of combining the different FIRs across states. "[Earlier], we would have to go to six different high courts to tackle the different cases. But if all the FIRs are clubbed in Bombay or any one state, we can challenge all of them in the [corresponding] high court. The Supreme Court intends to club all the cases."

A still from Tandav

With the makers having taken immediate action by removing the objectionable scenes, the advocate noted that the cases are now only a way of "seeking publicity". "People are entitled to make a political satire. If you don't want to watch it, don't; nobody is forcing people to watch the series. According to me, these cases are not about hurting people's religious sentiments, but of people seeking publicity.

These are not genuine cases. It has happened in the past too, over [MF] Hussain's painting. The objectionable scenes have been removed, so, it lends to the fact that [the transpiring events] are only sensational."