The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a PIL seeking a stay on Sunny Deol’s upcoming film Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak, noting that a similar petition is already pending before a single-judge bench.
Published: November 5, 2026, 1:54 PM IST
Share Article
https://www.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/delhi-high-court-rejects-pil-seeking-stay-on-sunny-deols-suryaa-over-alleged-anti-doctor-content-8542394/
Sunny Deol in Suryaa
Sunny Deol‘s upcoming film Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak has come under legal scrutiny ahead of its theatrical release on November 20The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a stay on the film’s release over allegations that it portrays doctors in a negative light and promotes violence against healthcare professionals.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma said it was not inclined to hear the PIL as a similar petition had already been filed by members of the medical fraternity and is pending before a single-judge bench.
Read more:
Ramayana: Sunny Deol’s first look as Lord Hanuman in post-credit scene goes viral – Watch
On November 2, the single judge issued notices to the concerned authorities and sought their responses to the petitionThe matter is scheduled for hearing on November 16.
The division bench said that even if the current petitioners were also doctors, “we see no reason for multiplicity of proceedings”.
The court also said that the petitioners could join the ongoing proceedings before the single judgeIt further allowed them to continue pursuing their representation before the concerned authorities.
Why are doctors seeking a stay on Suryaa?
The PIL was filed by Dr Nachiketa Bhatia and Dr Dhruv Chauhan, who sought a stay on the film’s releaseThey alleged that its official trailer shows physical violence against medical professionals as heroic and unfairly portrays doctors in private hospitals as corrupt.
The petitioners argued that such scenes could affect public law and orderThey also asked the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to review the film and modify or remove the scenes and dialogues they found objectionable.
During the hearing, the bench questioned why it should take up another petition when a similar case was already pending before another bench of the High Court.
In response, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the matter was sensitive and that a PIL had a wider scope compared to a regular writ petition.
What did CBFC tell the Delhi High Court?
During the proceedings, the CBFC’s counsel informed the court that the film had not yet received certification and was still under consideration.
The counsel also pointed out that the Hindi film was not an original story but a remake of a South Indian film that was already available in the public domain.
The petitioners’ lawyer further argued that the language used in the teaser could give viewers the impression that relatives of patients could resort to violence against doctors and other medical staff.
The film is scheduled to arrive in theatres on November 20, while the pending petition is listed for hearing on November 16.
