Supreme Court refused to modify its order in the Jagannath animation film case, observing that courts cannot stifle creativity over objections raised by a few individuals

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to modify its earlier order concerning the animated film based on Lord Jagannath, observing that courts cannot sit in judgment over artistic expression merely because a few individuals take offence.

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the modification application moved by the Odisha government, which had sought reconsideration of the earlier directions in light of objections raised by the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) and other stakeholders following a special screening of the film.

"We have heard the learned Advocate General. We are not inclined to modify the order. The application is dismissed," the bench ordered.


Appearing for the State of Odisha, the Advocate General Pitambar Acharya submitted that a special screening of the film had been organised for religious heads, representatives of Sanatan Dharma, senior government officials and technical experts. According to him, several participants objected to the depiction of Lord Jagannath in animated form, contending that it was not in conformity with religious scriptures.

The AG informed the Court that the producer had assured those present that the film would be released after adhering to the concerns raised. Even after the dismissal of the application, he urged the Court to permit the State Government to independently exercise its revisional powers under the relevant statute. "We are not standing in the way of the release. But Section 6 confers revisional powers. Let it be independently considered," he submitted.

The Court, however, declined the request. "No, we will not consider that. Though we passed an order, we have asked him that if somebody's sensibility has been affected, it has to be the Director's prerogative. The Court can't sit in judgment," Justice Nagarathna observed.

During the hearing, the bench repeatedly underscored the importance of protecting artistic freedom and cautioned against allowing isolated objections to suppress creative works.

Justice Nagarathna remarked that creative works are often backed by extensive research and thoughtful expression.

"They do research. Creativity and reason go into these works," she observed.

When Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamath, appearing for the producer, submitted that there was "not one word derogatory" in the film, Justice Nagarathna responded that any voluntary changes were a matter of the filmmaker's own conscience.

"If your conscience feels there is anything that needs to be taken out, do it," she said.

Kamath further relied on the minutes of the Shree Jagannath Temple Committee's meeting, submitting that the committee itself had described the animated film as "laudable."

Justice Nagarathna also expressed concern over the broader implications of entertaining such challenges. "Just because two-three sensitive people continue to file petitions, we will have to pass an order in respect of Hindu gods and goddesses that there shall be no creativity. Ramayana on television will stop. There will be no art, no culture," she remarked.

Emphasising that mythology has traditionally been interpreted through different artistic mediums, she observed that animation serves an important role in introducing children to such stories. "There is creativity in this country. Animation is for the purpose of children. Nobody is now reading books. There can't be ransom like this," Justice Nagarathna said.

She further clarified that artistic portrayals do not necessarily diminish religious faith. "These things should not come in the way of art. This is in no way coming in Lord Jagannath devotion, reverence," the judge observed.

The Advocate General, however, maintained that Lord Jagannath stood on a different footing, arguing that "Lord Jagannath is not fiction" and objecting to certain visual depictions in the film. "Lord Jagannath is not Doraemon. Lord Jagannath has been portrayed as Spider-Man," he submitted.

At one stage, Justice Mahadevan asked the producer's counsel why the suggested corrections could not be incorporated. Kamath responded that no consensus had been reached during the screening itself, submitting that several participants had walked out before discussions could conclude.

The Court ultimately refused to interfere with its earlier order, leaving it to the filmmaker to decide whether any voluntary modifications were warranted while reiterating that judicial intervention cannot become a tool to curtail artistic expression merely because a handful of individuals claim their sentiments have been hurt.

Previous Proceedings

Notably, two weeks back, the Supreme Court had allowed the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath, on or after July 28th noting that starting July 16 for a period of 10 days lord Jagannath yatra and rituals connected therewith were to take place. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan had noted that CBFC, has permitted the exhibition of the film and has cleared the same after considering the film having regard to revelant parameters.

Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat had appeared for makers of the film and told the bench that crores had been invested in the film. "There is grave economic loss my lords...", the bench was told.

"We have been apprised that the Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra commenced yesterday and will continue for a period of 10 days, until July 27...it is stated by the appellant that the tv series has been exhibited on youtube. Yesterday onwards for a period of 10 days lord Jagannath yatra and rituals connected therewith are taking place..In these circumstances, we permit the film to be exhibited on or after 28th July. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.", the bench had gone on to order.

Earlier, a CJI Surya Kant led bench had agreed to list the plea for hearing after a mentioning was made by Kamat. The plea challenged the Orissa High Court's decision from July 15 which has restrained the release of the animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath, observing that while freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected, it cannot be permitted to shatter religious sentiments in a manner that results in unrest in society.

Case Title: Ele Animations Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahesh Kumar Sahi and connected matter
Bench: Justices BV Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan
Hearing Date: July 29, 2026
Tags: