In a latest development the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the grandson of freedom fighter Gopal Mukherjee, popularly known as “Gopal Patha”, who had challenged the alleged derogatory depiction of his grandfather in filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri’s new movie, ‘The Bengal Files’.

Justice Amrita Sinha in her order said:"Petitioner intended to obtain certain information under RTI. The time period within which the info ought to have been provided has expired. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on part of auth to provide info within statutory time period, then the petitioner ought to avail remedy prescribed under RTI act. Writ petition on said cause of action will not be maintainable. In view of the above the WP fails and is hereby dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the competent forum for remedy in accordance with law if so advised".

At the outset, the counsel representing the film’s producer and director informed the court that the petition had only been served on his clients on Saturday, and he himself was engaged in the matter only last evening. He stated that he received the email late last night and requested that the matter be heard after two days. He further argued that the plea had become infructuous since the film had already been released.

The counsel for the Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) submitted that an information request had been made under the RTI Act. "That time expired. As per my instructions no appeal has been filed...if you look at Complaint, it can be defamatory suit or criminal matter...," he stated.

Meanwhile, the petitioner’s counsel argued that he had exhausted all possible legal remedies and forums, yet no assistance was provided. The Counsel further stated that the petitioner had even filed a written complaint in Bowbazar Police Station, but no tangible steps were taken. The court then asked, "What Police inaction?"

To this, the petitioner’s counsel responded that he had raised two issues with the CBFC. He submitted: "Firstly what was the role of CBFC in considering depiction of historical character specially in reference to my grandfather? How the depiction was evaluated by members of CBFC? They have not revealed till date."

He further stated that he had sought a re-evaluation of the film’s content, requesting cuts, edits, or removal of objectionable portions. The court, however, inquired as to where the representation to the CBFC had been made. The petitioner’s counsel replied that he had reiterated his two questions. To this, the court orally observed: "Question and Answer are different things. If you have a prayer, complaint before any authority? Where is the representation?"

The petitioner’s counsel responded that he had sent an email and clarified that he had asked questions not merely posed them. The court then remarked: "RTI is a different thing alltogether...if no explanation is provided there is provision for appeal, there is provision for second appeal. You avail those."

The petitioner’s counsel said he had even sent a reminder, to which the court replied that "the reminder is not the end of the whole thing."

Background:

In context, a Writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court against the filmmaker Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s upcoming movie, ‘The Bengal Files’. The Petitioner, Shantanu Mukherjee, grandson of freedom fighter Gopal Chandra Mukherjee (popularly known as Gopal Patha), alleged that the film portrays his grandfather in a false and disrespectful manner. The plea also questioned Vivek Agnihotri’s position as Board Member of the Central Board of Film Certificate (CBFC) while being the director of the disputed film.

Shantanu Mukherjee has accused the state authorities and the CBFC of showing “gross indifference” to his repeated complaints in his petition . He claimed that despite filing representations before the police, the CBFC, and even serving a legal notice to Vivek Agnihotri, no concrete action was taken.

The petitioner pointed out that Agnihotri himself admitted in an interview to having received a lawful communication from his Advocates regarding the objectionable depiction but chose not to respond.

The petitioner further highlighted that he filed written complaints at Bowbazar Police Station on 18th July, 2025 and again on 23rd August 2025, but no tangible steps were taken. He also submitted a (Right To Information) RTI application to the CBFC on 12th August 2025 seeking details about the evaluation process of the film, but no reply has been received till date.

Additionally, the plea demanded removal of any content on Youtube or Social media that tarnishes the reputation of Gopal Chandra Mukherjee and his family and also seeks necessary changes or cuts in the film where the freedom fighter is allegedly depicted dishonourably.

Judgment awaited:

Case Status: SANTANU MUKHERJEE v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Case title: WPA/20884/2025