Thread:

Appearing for actor Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal argued that views of a character depicted in the series cannot be ascribed to the Actor. The Bench however did not seem inclined to entertain this aspect in an Article 32 petition. https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1354357715993120769

Agarwal : The statements of the character cannot be attributed to the actor.

Justice Shah : You accepted the contract after reading the script. You cannot hurt religious sentiments.

This opens a veritably new floodgates of liabilities for actors

Especially for Actors playing negative roles, or portraying evil characters. Actors playing corrupt Judges, for instance, or Actors playing evil upper caste landlords committing caste atrocities or perpetrating mass murder or inciting riots

In short Actors portraying characters whom may hold disagreeable views or perpetrate actions that are likely to hurt religious or other sentiments may become liable for the actions of their fictional and/or fictitious characters.
What about roles based on real life situations?

Much to think about for Actors, much to feat too, ditto for Producers, Directors and other Artists dealing in other media