Former Actor, filmmaker and No More Tears founder Somy Ali has issued a strongly worded public statement questioning what she describes as “double standards” in the Indian film industry regarding creative freedom and accountability. Addressing filmmakers, actors, writers and film students, Somy argued that cinema should be allowed to examine difficult truths without selective restrictions.

Referring to the 1982 film Arth, Somy said, “Parveen Babi was already diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Filmmakers turned her living mental illness into cinema while she had no capacity to give consent. That was allowed. That was defended as creative freedom.”

She contrasted that with actor Sanjay Dutt’s biopic, stating, “Sanjay Dutt’s biopic showed only what he permitted and left out what he refused because he was in full control of his mind and could give or withhold consent. That, too, was accepted. Sanjay Dutt committed a crime and he served his time. The system applied consequences.”

Somy then questioned why, according to her, films examining other legal cases face greater scrutiny. “Yet when a film attempts to examine a case in which a court has already recorded a conviction for the killing of blackbucks, the same system suddenly discovers its limits. The conviction is from 2018. The crime is from the 1990s. The accused remains out on bail. Where is the same standard of justice?” she asked.

Drawing from her own academic background, Somy added, “I have attended and graduated from three film academies. I understand creative freedom. I also understand selective outrage.”

Calling on aspiring filmmakers and performers to reflect on the issue, she said, “Students of cinema should be outraged. Young writers should be outraged. Young actors should be outraged. If a film about a woman’s documented mental illness without her consent was acceptable, but a film about a convicted case is treated as dangerous, what lesson are we teaching the next generation? That creative freedom exists only when it does not threaten the powerful? That mega-stars who can afford the best lawyers operate under a different set of rules?”

Somy also criticized what she described as the industry’s silence on controversial subjects. “The industry has largely chosen silence. Like toy soldiers, many have simply obeyed the unofficial order not to engage with inconvenient voices, all while wrapping themselves in the language of humanity,” she said.

Emphasizing that her concerns extend beyond any one individual, Somy stated, “This is not about one film or one person. This is about whether Indian cinema still has the courage to look at difficult truths, or whether it has decided that some subjects are permanently off-limits because the people involved are too rich, too famous, or too well-protected.”

She concluded by urging future generations of filmmakers to challenge what she sees as unequal standards. “Students, you are the ones who will inherit this industry. If you accept these double standards now, you will spend your careers working inside them. The film industry must decide: either creative freedom applies to everyone, or it is just a privilege reserved for those who can buy their way out of consequences. The public is watching. The next generation is watching. History will record which side you chose.”