English

BBA LLB (Hons.) / 2nd Semester

English Argument and Research project

Topic: For the ban of Rajnikanth's film - Robot - 2.0

Submitted to: -
Prof. Rakesh Nambiar (Dr.)
NMIMS, KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW

Submitted by: -
DEEP SANGHANI
ROLL NO. D018
SAP ID: 81022100026

pg. 1
KPMSOL
 English

Table of Content

Sr. No. Particulars Page no.

1. Introduction 3

2. Facts of the case 3

3. Relevant statutory provisions 4

4. Judicial History / Precedents 5

5. Legal Issue 5

6. Analysis: Arguments For Ban 5

7. Counter Arguments 6

8. Conclusion 8

9. Bibliography 9

pg. 2
KPMSOL
 English

Introduction
2.0 is an Indian Science fiction action film released in the year 2018, Directed by S. Shankar,
and produced by Subaskaran under the name of Lyca Productions. As it is the sequel to Robot
(2010), South Superstar called Rajinikanth represents the roles of Vaseegaran who is a Robotic
Scientist, and Chitti the creation of vaseegran as the Robot, and there is one more character
added in this film called Pakshi Rajan performed by Akshay Kumar. The film depicts the
conflict between Chitti, a decommissioned humanoid robot, and Pakshi Rajan, a former
ornithologist who wants justice for cell phone users in order to avoid bird population collapse.
The film was produced on an estimated budget of ₹570 crores, this film is the most expensive
Indian film to date as production of the film started in 2015 and was released in the year 2018
with the use of principal photography conducted at AVM Studios later that year. On November
29, 2018, 2.0 was released worldwide in both 3D and traditional formats, as well as dubbed
versions in Hindi and Telugu. On its first day, it made 117.34 crores worldwide, the second-
highest ever for an Indian film. The film was the highest-grossing film worldwide for that week,
making over 520 crores in its opening weekend. 2.0 is India's second highest-grossing film and
the world's sixth highest-grossing Indian film.

Facts of the case

In the film 2.0, Dr. Vaseegaran has recently constructed a new android humanoid assistant
named Nila, whom he shows to a group of college students, and the film begins with an
unknown man walking up to a cell tower and hanging himself. Shortly after, all of the city's
cellphones began to fly into the sky, causing panic among the public. Vaseegaran proposes
rebooting the robot Chitti to a scientific council meeting to study the issue. A member of the
council, Dhirendra Bohra, whose father was assassinated by Chitti a few years ago, is opposed
to the plan.

So why there a sudden requirement of reassembling of ROBOT was proposed by Dr.

Vaseegaran in the meeting as that was the only way to deal with Pakshi Rajan. He created a
revolutionary moment against the mobile phone, the towers, and mobile service. Akshay
Kumar's character Pakshi Rajan believed that the bands of the towers of the network service
provider were way much higher compared to the standard prescribed by the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India. And the same was complained by the Pakshi Rajan to the

pg. 3
KPMSOL
 English

authority but due to corruption, he got no resolution and took the initiative of doing something
for the betterment of the bird and human life. But the motive of Pakshi Rajan was good but the
way he approach the situation was wrong in the eyes of law and the same can be done by taking
into consideration the law.

In the film, Pakshi Rajan has also used the word ‘Electromagnetic Field (EMF)’ and he also
claims that because of EMF emissions from the mobile phone for the death of animals and
birds.

The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) filed a complaint against the film for
promoting obscurantist and anti-scientific attitudes against mobile phones, towers, and mobile
services. And they have also mentioned that this film is against ‘public interest’.

Relevant statutory provisions

 SECTION 505 OF IPC
Under this section, this film promotes not to use of technologies and new inventions for
the better well fair of society, by putting the statement “Every person who owns the cell
phone is a murderer” and creating public mischief as this type of statement is totally
not acceptable.

 SECTION 63 OF IPC
Under this section, this film provides lots of misinformation to the public about the
influence of cell towers and phones on the environment, particularly birds, which is
exaggerated in film 2.0. The group believes that 2.0 misinforms viewers about
microwaves from cell towers, defames telecoms, and makes "anti-scientific"
statements, all of which could lead to public wrath and distrust.

 SECTION 499 OF IPC

Under this section, this film defames the image of the member of COAI, i.e.,
Vodafone, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio. Which contributes to more than 90% of the
telecom business in India. And the COAI also wanted to put the ban on this movie.

pg. 4
KPMSOL
 English

Judicial History / Precedents

 Juhi Chawla against 5G rollout:
 Juhi Chawla and two others have filed a lawsuit in the High Court, alleging that
5G technology should not be rolled out until it is "confirmed safe."
 Juhi Chawla petition against the rollout of 5G in the country was thrown out by
Delhi High Court, by saying that lawsuit was for ‘publicity’ as there is no harm
from 5G.

Legal Issue
The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has asked Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC) to revoke the 2.0 certification with immediate effect, including the
teaser and trailer. The association has also asked for the film to be put on hold until the
complaint's demands are addressed. Whether robot 2.0 should be banned keeping in mind that
it might contain misinformation with regarding to bands of towers that was prescribed by the
government and electromagnetic field.

Analysis:
Arguments For the ban:

1. In the movie, there was a statement said by Akshay Kumar’s character Pakshi
Rajan “Every person who owns a cell phone is a murderer” and violates the
Section 505 of IPC
 This statement creates the public mischief, According to Section 505 of IPC as
these statements creates hate at new technologies immerging in 5G worlds and
tells not to use new innovation.
 In society at large, this type of statement where not acceptable as this creates
restriction to create innovations through technologies as internet is the future.

pg. 5
KPMSOL
 English

2. The film Robot 2.0 has an obscurantist and anti-scientific attitude towards mobile
phones, towers, and mobile services.
 The manner in which the mobile service and tower are shown in the movie is
completely baseless in the real-world, inaccurate, and mere imagination. And
it is falsely represented in the movie.
 And not only the movie but the teaser, trailer and other promotional videos
depict mobile phone and mobile tower in a defamatory manner.

3. In movie Robot 2.0, Akshay Kumar plays the role of a crazed ornithologist
who blames electromagnetic field (EMF) emissions from mobile phones for
the death of animals and birds.
 COAI said in its statement that there is “no evidence” for such an impact of
mobile services and towers on birds or an animal. As a result, they have
accused the makers of film of violating the guidelines of the Indian
Cinematograph Act (1952) and spreading misinformation.

Counter Arguments:

1. I feel calling for a ban is unnecessary. The situation can simply be dealt with a strong
statutory warning about the movie being a pure work of fiction – science fiction at that
– with no resemblance to any real event, and then let the public decide.
 But until we don’t have strong statutes, we have to ban this type of movie that
completely change the thoughts of public in negative aspects, films must have
the capabilities to give some social message to the society not to deliver wrong
issues.
 So, in the name of fiction, you cannot deceptive the real facts, and that
completely misleads the society.
 So ‘No Resemblance to real event’, it is not like that, in society every type of
person lives, it is must that you much create the film that is natural and if you
appose anything, you should have clear explanation. And the people learn what
they see. Therefore, the event occurs in the film, people may connect with their
life.

pg. 6
KPMSOL
 English

2. This is movie is a work of creativity and every person has the right to express their
creativity, and the law doesn’t curb the artistic freedom of an artist and censoring a
content violates the right of both creator and the audience.
 law will protect your artistic freedom and even I am saying that every person
is different and every person have unique skill to adapt and express their
thought in the way they want. But the thing is if your artistic skill and freedom
will the get advantageous to negative content then the artistic freedom itself
will ruin you as well as society.
 Therefore, Article 19(2) of Constitution authorises the government to impose
reasonable restrictions upon freedom of speech and expression in the interest
of public order and violence should be discouraged.
 The film encourages the misrepresentation of facts and hence the thing above
mention take in to consideration.

3. The ban is demanded 60 hours before the schedule release while the teaser and the
trailer were launched 2 months back. That clearly means there’s an agenda behind it.
 According to limitation Act, plaintiff is entitled to file the suit within certain
number of years, and in the case of defamation the ‘One year’ time period is
provided for filing the suit.
 So, in any case there is a time limit in which plaintiff is entitled to file suits
with in reasonable time period.

4. Mobile is in everyone’s DNA now. Movies are work of fiction, COAI should not be
making this up, as un-necessary it would create confusion. Aparchit had shown some
of the scenes in which split personality would burn / kill using various methods, that
doesn’t mean that we should start believing such things happen.
 So, if you think that mobile is the DNA of everyone than why would you
discourage the new innovation were the real artistic freedom is correctly used.
 The thing is, people will feel and react what they saw. And if you used your
artistic freedom to the next level, then it will be either revolution or destruction
to the society.

pg. 7
KPMSOL
 English

5. People just can’t, under any circumstances, ban ideas that they don’t agree with.
That’s not how freedom works. Freedom is you not caring what I think, and me not
caring what you think. As long as we are not infringing on each other’s rights, no one
gets to tell, what to think and feel.
 It’s your own philosophy, so the things is, you make the film and people do
watch the film by purchasing film tickets, and there the point where your
liabilities starts that you have to provide the neutral content, and if you fails,
you did infringed the right of viewers.

Conclusion
That concludes by submission for the day and at last I would like to say that, in every film,
there is positive and negative aspect, so it is your sole decision to decide that what exactly is
correct and what is wrong, and in the film called Robot ‘2.0’ the aspect they were talking and
the issue they raise are absolutely correct but in the way they presented was not a correct
approach and in technologized world, more the technology more the issue can be faced. So, its
still debatable topic that Technology is a blessing – but it can also be a curse.

pg. 8
KPMSOL
 English

Bibliography
 Statutes
1. Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution
2. SECTION 505 OF IPC
3. SECTION 63 OF IPC
4. SECTION 499 OF IPC
5. Indian Cinematograph Act (1952)

 Articles and websites

1. T.R. Vivek. (2018) ‘2.0’: the robot redux. The Hindu.
2. Aditi. (2021) “Suit was publicity”. Bar and Bench.
3. Deepshikha, G. (2021) “for Publicity” NDTV.
4. (2018) Rajinikanth’s 2.0 Looks and Sounds Crazy, But Banning It Would Be Worse.
Beeboom.

pg. 9
KPMSOL