The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of a PIL seeking a direction to rename the film “120 Bahadur” as “120 Veer Ahir.” The petitioners contended that the film’s title distorted historical facts and undermined the identity of the Ahir regiment portrayed in the storyline. They also informed the Court that a revision under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 had already been filed before the Central Government on 13 November 2025 and was pending.
Appearing for the Union of India, counsel assured the Bench that the Central Government would decide the pending revision within two days, following which the Court recorded this assurance and disposed of the matter with liberty to revive the proceedings if required.
However, the hearing also saw extensive submissions by Advocate Abhinav Sood, counsel for Respondent No. 4 (the film producer), who strongly opposed the maintainability of the petition. The counsel contended that the petition suffered from gross delay, especially since certification had already been granted. The film also carries a standard disclaimer clarifying that characters, names, and events are fictional, and there is no intention to target any community further weakening the petitioners’ claim.
Taking all submissions into account and especially in view of the Union Government’s assurance to decide the pending revision within two days, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry disposed of the PIL, granting liberty to the petitioners to return to Court if any grievance remains after the Central Government’s decision.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate; Ms. Poorvi Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Ishita Negi, Advocate
Respondent No. 4: Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate; Mr. Jay K. Bhardwaj, Advocate; Ms. Priya Darshani Arora, Advocate; Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocate; Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate; Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate.
Respondent No. 1-3 (UoI) : Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate