Dawn Images

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking the imposition of a ban on the animated biblical musical film David (2025) for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of Muslims.

The petition was filed by a citizen, Abdul Razzaq, against respondents, inclu­ding the federal government, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), the film censor board and others.

It was taken up by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, which dismissed the plea at the preliminary hearing stage, observing that it was “misconceived”.

In its order, the court noted that the petitioner sought direction against the impending release of an animated motion picture film titled David, said to be based on “the life of the Prophet of that name, as recognised by the respective texts held sacred by followers of the three main monotheistic faiths, with it being alleged based on its theatrical trailer that the portrayal of his life is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, hence would deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims, and the imposition of a ban being sought accordingly”.

Referring to an identical petition filed in 2022 against the motion picture Joyland, in which the petitioner had sought a ban on the grounds that it was “portraying a relationship between a married man and a transgender woman”, the SHC noted that the plea had already been dismissed by the SHC and it reproduced the observations of that division bench in the order sheet.

The two-member bench had observed in its detailed order issued in 2022: “[…] in our view, where a cinematic work has passed through the censors, who have examined its content and cleared it for release with an appropriate certification, an individual cannot be allowed to trump that decision through a court proceeding based on his conception of morality. Indeed, it is not the function of the court under Article 199 to make a moral judgment so as to curtail the freedom of speech and expression of a filmmaker, as safeguarded under Article 19 of the Constitution.

“On the contrary, the default position of the court under Article 199 ought to be that of fully safeguarding the fundamental rights by giving as expansive an interpretation to Article 19 as possible, and in the event of a restriction being imposed by the Board or any other authority that may be competent in that regard, testing the reasonableness of that restriction stringently, to ensure that the same is ‘reasonable’ in the strictest conceivable sense.

“As such, in the absence of any restriction imposed by the concerned quarter, whether that be the Board or Provincial Government, it does not fall to the court to morally police the public by deciding what should or should not be viewed and to take on the function of itself devising and imposing a restriction. Suffice it to say that unnecessary censorship suffocates a society and stifles its creativity and growth.”

The court added: “Looking to the matter at hand, we are confident that Islam, being the great global religion that it is, is strong enough to withstand a cinematic work portraying a purely fictional account of a relationship humanising a transgender character, and are equally sanguine that our society is not so weak as to crumble as a consequence.”

Originally published in Dawn, January 8th, 2026