In a recent hearing at the Calcutta High Court, a plea to ban the controversial film Adipurush took an unexpected turn. The court observed that the petitioner's claims of serving notice to all the respondents were contradicted by the documents on record.

The petitioner's counsel asserted that notice had been served on all the parties involved in the case. However, upon examining the documents, the bench discovered that some respondents had not received the notice, contradicting the petitioner's claims.

Expressing disappointment with the petitioner's counsel, the court remarked, "Mr. counsel, you should be fair with the bench. Otherwise, it will shake the confidence of the Bench on the Bar members. We trust you and go by your word. You cannot lie like this. Is this a public interest litigation or a publicity interest litigation? Please understand, we are not some clerks sitting here to check your documents."

The incident prompted the court to announce that it would no longer accept affidavits of service filed by advocates in court. Instead, the court directed the advocates to file the affidavit of service with the relevant department for verification before it is presented in court.

The court criticized the petitioner for appearing to have conducted insufficient research in the case. Chief Justice Sivagnanam stated, "What is this? Being an advocate, you ought to do your research even before filing the petition. Do not use this court to conduct a roving inquiry."

The petitioner's counsel raised objections to how certain characters, including Goddess Sita and Vibhishana's wife, were depicted in the film, claiming that the camera focused on their private parts. The counsel argued that the film had hurt the sentiments of Hindus.

While noting that similar matters were pending before the Allahabad High Court and the Rajasthan High Court, the bench agreed to hear the public interest litigation (PIL) petition. However, the court adjourned the matter until the notice was served to all parties involved.

The case title is "Debdip Mandal vs State of West Bengal."