The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against the release of the upcoming film "Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak" starring Sunny Deol over its alleged portrayal of violence against doctors, observing that a separate petition raising concerns about the same film is already pending before the Court.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma noted that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16253 of 2026, filed by individual doctors, concerns the same film and is listed for hearing on November 16. It held that there was no reason to entertain another petition on the same issue, as doing so would lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

"Once the issue is looked into by another court in the writ petition, we see no reason to have multiplicity of the proceedings," the Court observed.

The petitioners were however, given the liberty to pursue their representation before the concerned authorities. The Court also indicated that, if they so desired, they could join the proceedings in the pending petition.

The film is scheduled to be released on November 20.

PIL Raises Concerns Over Alleged Glorification Of Violence Against Doctors

The PIL was filed by Dr. Nachiketa Bhatia (Vice President, Legal Cell for All India Doctors) and Dr. Dhruv Chauhan (National Spokesperson, IMA Junior Doctors Network, and Founder & Chairperson, Legal Cell for All India Doctors) through Advocates Satyam Singh Rajput and Neema.

The petition challenged the upcoming 20 November 2026 theatrical release of the movie on the grounds that its official trailer depicts physical violence against medical personnel as heroic and unfairly generalizes corruption in the healthcare profession, thereby violating Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and threatening public law & order.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which lays down the principles governing film certification. The provision requires the authorities to consider, among other things, whether a film is likely to incite the commission of an offence or affect public order, decency or morality.

Counsel submitted that the language used in the film's official teaser and trailer could create an impression that patients and their family members should resort to violence against doctors.

"The kind of language that has been used, as is evident from the official teaser and the trailer, it gives the impression that now time has come that the patient, the family members, the only remedy is to resort to violence against the doctors," counsel argued.

It was submitted that incidents of violence against healthcare professionals were frequently being reported, including in government hospitals in Delhi, and that doctors were already working under considerable stress in an unsafe environment.

The petitioners further objected to the film's alleged portrayal of overbilling and incorrect prescriptions, arguing that such depictions could create an unfair generalisation about the medical profession.

Counsel pointed out that the film's promotional material described it as being "inspired by unbelievable true events". He argued that the portrayal could undermine public confidence in healthcare professionals and aggravate the existing concerns regarding their safety.

Court Says Separate Petition By Doctors Already Pending

The Court was informed that a separate writ petition concerning the same film had been filed by individual doctors and that notice had been issued in that matter. The petition was listed for November 16, just four days before the film's scheduled release.

When the petitioners sought to distinguish their PIL from the pending case, the Court questioned why they could not join the existing proceedings.

Counsel submitted that the present petition was a PIL and its scope was wider. The Court, however, was not persuaded to entertain a separate proceeding.

"Why should we entertain petitions when already a substantial petition at the behest of the doctor fraternity, the grievance is looked into?" the Court asked.

It further observed that the doctors who had approached the Court in the pending matter had a better basis to raise the concerns.

Counsel clarified that the petitioners were not insisting on adjudication of the PIL on merits. Instead, they requested the Court to direct the authorities to consider the concerns raised in the petition before the film received certification.

Petitioners Say Representation Already Made To Authorities

The petitioners informed the Court that they had submitted a representation dated October 22, raising concerns about what they described as unfair generalisation, depiction of violence, the safety and security of healthcare professionals, and the potential undermining of public confidence in the medical system.

They requested that the representation, along with the official teaser and trailer, be examined by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) before the film was certified.

Counsel suggested that the present petition itself could be treated as a representation and that the authorities could hear the petitioners and consider whether any scenes or dialogues required modification or deletion.

The petitioners also submitted that the Film's particular dialogues and overall portrayal could have an impact on society.

During the hearing, the authorities informed the Court that the film had not yet been certified and that the certification process was still underway.

The Court, however, declined to issue a direction requiring the authorities to treat the PIL as a representation, reiterating that the same grievance was already being examined in the pending petition filed by doctors.

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, counsel requested the Court to record that the petitioners were at liberty to make or pursue a representation before the authorities.

The Court accordingly disposed of the PIL, clarifying that the petitioners were at liberty to pursue their representation with the respondents.

Case title: Nachiket Bhatia And Anr V. Union Of India An Ors

Tags: