In a significant ruling reinforcing artistic freedom and judicial restraint, the Delhi High Court has declined to entertain two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions that sought directions to label the soon-to-be-released film The Taj Story as fiction and include disclaimers about its historical authenticity. The movie, starring senior actor Paresh Rawal, is scheduled to release tomorrow.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that courts cannot function as “Super Censor Boards”, nor can they be arbiters of competing historical interpretations.
“We Are Not a Super Censor Board”: High Court
During the hearing, the Bench remarked that creative works, whether literature or cinema, often interpret history differently. Imposing judicially-mandated disclaimers would set a precedent that suppresses artistic expression and academic debate.
The Court noted:
“We are not a super censor board… You want a disclaimer saying this is not history. Tell me, in any work of fiction, whether the author puts a disclaimer that this is not history? Even for history, two historians may have different views, but which historian’s view is correct—is this something to be decided by us?”
This observation reinforces the long-standing judicial view that history is interpretive, not absolute—and that cinema, as a creative medium, may explore contested narratives.
Petitioners Accused Film of Presenting “Fabricated” Narrative
The PILs were filed separately by advocate Shakeel Abbas and Chetna Gautam. They argued that the film allegedly propagates an alternative version of the Taj Mahal’s origins, claiming it may distort established historical consensus and stir communal tensions.
One of the petitions sought directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to:
- Re-examine the film’s certification
- Remove or modify “provocative” content
- Ensure a disclaimer is added clarifying that the film represents a speculative narrative
The petition contended that the film may:
- “Erode faith in historical scholarship”
- “Provoke communal unrest”
- “Damage the international reputation of the Taj Mahal”, a UNESCO World Heritage Site
The petition also alleged that the movie amplifies narratives promoted by certain political organizations, thereby potentially endangering public harmony.
Court Criticizes Petitioners for “Lack of Research”
The Bench noted that the petitioners had not undertaken adequate research before filing the PIL, stating that they failed to present clear evidence of concrete harm.
The Court also questioned the inclusion of actor Paresh Rawal as a party to the case.
The Bench observed:
“Why have you made the actor a party? He is a professional actor; he is not responsible for the content. If tomorrow you file a contempt, will you make the lawyer a party?”
This remark underscores an important legal principle: actors performing roles are not legally accountable for the ideologies or narratives portrayed in films, unless they are part of the production or decision-making process.
Petitioners Allowed to Withdraw Pleas and Approach Central Government
After hearing the arguments, the Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw their PILs and approach the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This provision allows a party to seek a revision of the CBFC certification directly from the government.
The Bench ordered:
“In case any revision is filed before the Central Government, the same shall be decided expeditiously.”
The Court also directed petitioners to remove Paresh Rawal’s name from the memo of parties.
Representation Before the Court
- Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit represented the Union of India.
- The petitioners appeared in person through their respective counsel.
Legal and Cultural Significance of the Ruling
This decision resonates with previous judicial pronouncements emphasizing:
1. Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression
Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, filmmakers have the right to creative expression, subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
2. Judicial Restraint in Matters of Creative Interpretation
Courts typically avoid interfering with film content once certification is granted, unless there is:
- Clear incitement to violence
- Hate speech
- Threat to national security
3. Multiplicity of Historical Perspectives
The Court highlighted that history is not monolithic. Different scholars may offer contrasting frameworks, and the judiciary cannot endorse or reject historical viewpoints except in rare extreme circumstances.
4. Role of the CBFC and Executive, Not the Judiciary
Certification and censorship are functions vested in:
- Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
- Central Government under the Cinematograph Act
Courts intervene only in cases of illegality, procedural irregularity, or constitutional violation.
Broader Debate: Movies, History, and Public Sentiment
The controversy around The Taj Story echoes past disputes involving films depicting historical or mythological figures, such as:
- Padmaavat (2018)
- Tandav (2021)
- The Kashmir Files (2022)
These cases highlight the continuing tension between artistic freedom and identity politics.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to interfere in the release of The Taj Story underscores an important principle:
✅ Courts are not arbiters of historical truth
✅ Censorship cannot be performed by judicial decree
✅ Creative expressions must be allowed space to explore contested ideas
The ruling reaffirms that freedom of art and scholarship cannot be confined to a single narrative, especially in a culturally diverse society like India.
As the film releases, the debate over history, interpretation, and representation is likely to continue—not in courtrooms, but in public discourse, academia, and cinema halls, where it ultimately belongs.
Also Read
Can Rape Case on False Promise to Marry Be Settled Amicably? Supreme Court Says Yes
