Delhi HC Refuses to Entertain doctors' PIL Against 'Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak'
New Delhi: Noting that a separate petition on the same matter is already pending, the Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against the release of the upcoming Sunny Deol-starrer movie "Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak" over its alleged portrayal of violence against doctors.
During the hearing of the plea, the HC Division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma took note of the fact that a separate plea, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16253 of 2026, filed by individual doctors, concerns the same film and it has been listed for hearing on November 16.
Taking note of this, the bench held that there was no reason to entertain another petition on the same matter as it would result in 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," observed the HC bench, while refusing to entertain the PIL 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.
According to a Lawbeat order, the court, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their representation before the concerned authorities. The bench also indicated that if they so desired, they could join the proceedings in the pending petition.
Details of the PIL:
The Sunny Deol-starrer movie is set to be released on November 20, 2026. Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that Dr. Bhatia and Dr. Chauhan had approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay on the theatrical release of Sunny Deol-starrer Suryaa-Aarambh Se Ant Tak, alleging that the film portrays the medical profession in a manner that could malign the image of doctors and depicts violence against healthcare professionals as justified. The plea had sought an interim stay on the film's theatrical release.
According to the petitioners, the official teaser and trailer of the film present a generalised picture of corruption in the medical profession. In the plea, the petitioners have highlighted objectionable dialogues about patients being handed a bill of Rs. 5,00,000 and made to undergo twenty-five tests, and the line “Doctors there don’t write prescriptions... they write commission on slips.”
Further, it has been argued by the petitioners that the promotional lines used in the trailer- including lines such as "Inspired by unbelievable true events” and “Discover the shocking truth of our medical system” lend an apparent claim of factual authenticity to this portrayal.
Another issue that the doctors had highlighted is the depiction of physical violence against the healthcare professionals. They have alleged that the film portrays physical violence against doctors, nursing staff and hospital employees as heroic or justified, which endangers healthcare workers and could disrupt emergency services and patient care.
Filing the plea, the petitioners had urged the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to examine the identified objectionable scenes and dialogues within their statutory powers. They have also sought directions to consider lawful corrective measures, including modification or deletion of specific scenes and dialogues, if found to violate the applicable law. They also sought directions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and CBFC to disclose the certification status of the film and the action taken on the IMA's representation dated October 22, 2026.
As interim prayers, the petitioners had sought an ad-interim ex parte stay on the theatrical release, exhibition and public screening of the film, for such limited period as the Court deems appropriate, pending preliminary examination of the identified content. Further, other prayers included, a restraint from proceeding with the theatrical exhibition while the interim order subsists, directions to the Ministry and CBFC to place the certification status and the action taken on the IMA representation dated 22.10.2026 on record and to examine the identified scenes and dialogues expeditiously.
Hearing before High Court:
During the hearing of the plea before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which lays down the principles governing the film certification. Under this, authorities are required to consider, among other things, whether a film is likely to incite the commission of an offence or affect public order, decency or morality.
The petitioners' counsel submitted that the language used in the official teaser and trailer of the film created 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," argued the counsel.
It was submitted by the petitioners that the incidents of violence against healthcare professionals were frequently being reported, including instances being reported from government hospitals in Delhi, and that the doctors were already working under considerable stress in an unsafe environment.
Further, they objected to the film's alleged portrayal of overbilling and incorrect prescriptions, and argued that such depictions could create an unfair generalisation about the medical profession.
The counsel for the doctors pointed out that the promotional material of the film described it as being "inspired by unbelievable true events". Referring to this, he argued that the portrayal could undermine public confidence in healthcare professionals and aggravate the existing concerns regarding their safety.
Court notes Separate Plea Pending on Same Matter:
During the proceedings, the Court was informed that a separate writ petition that concerned the same film had been filed by individual doctors and notice had been issued on the matter. The concerned plea was listed for a hearing on November 16, just four days before the theatrical release of the film.
At the outset, the petitioners sought to distinguish their PIL from the pending case. However, the Court sought to know why they could not join the existing proceedings.
It was submitted by the counsel that the present petition was a PIL and had a much wider scope. However, the Court 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?" questioned the Court.
Further, the bench observed that the doctors who are petitioners in the pending matter had a better basis to raise the concerns.
In response, the counsel for the petitioners clarified that the petitioners were not insisting on adjudication of the PIL on merits. Instead, they requested the Court to direct the authorities for considering the concerns raised in the plea before the film received its certification.
It was also submitted by the petitioners that they had submitted a representation dated October 22 in which they raised concerns regarding 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.
The petitioners requested that the representation, along with the official teaser and trailer, be examined by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) before the certification of the film.
It was suggested by the counsel that the present petition itself could be treated as a representation and the authorities could hear the petitioners and consider whether any scenes or dialogues required to be modified or deleted. Further, the petitioners submitted that the film's particular dialogues and overall portrayal could have an impact on society.
Observations by Court:
The authorities informed the HC bench that the film had not yet been certified and that the certification process was still underway.
However, the Court refused to issue directions to the authorities requiring them to treat the PIL as a representation and reiterated that the same grievance was already being examined in the pending petition filed by the doctors.
The counsel for the petitioners urged the Court to record that the petitioners were at liberty to make or pursue a representation before the authorities. Accordingly, the bench disposed of the PIL and clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to pursue their representation with the respondents.
The other plea, which is pending before the High Court, has been filed by Dr Nishant Soni and other office-bearers of Doctors of Corporate Society. They have sought directions to the authorities to remove the teaser of the movie from all online platforms until such examination and certification under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is complete. They argued that the teaser promotes a false portrayal of doctors in private and corporate hospitals as organ traffickers and commission-driven actors, and it also justifies violence against medical professionals.
Further, the plea sought directions to the authorities to examine the Film, and every teaser, trailer and promotional material of the Film, in accordance with Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the 2026 Guidelines, with particular reference to the content identified in paragraph 10 of the petition, to require such excisions and modifications as are necessary in law, to require the Film and each such teaser and trailer to carry a disclaimer that the Film is a work of fiction and is not based on true events, and that violence against doctors and healthcare workers is a punishable offence, and to disclose to the Court the status of certification of the Film.
