HC extends stay on release of ‘Maharaj’ by one day

THE TIMES OF INDIA (June 19, 2024)

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday extended its stay by one day on the release of “Maharaj”, the debut film of Bollywood star Aamir Khan’s son Junaid, which was slated for release on Netflix last week.

Justice Sangeeta Vishen extended the stay as the arguments on the applications for removal of stay by Netflix and Yash Raj Films will continue on Wednesday.

The court had stayed the release of the film last Friday on a petition filed by eight members of Pushtimarg sect, claiming that the depiction of 1862 Maharaj Libel Case and projection of observation by the British judges might cause public disorder and disenchantment with the sect and faith because the case was based on a journalist Karsandas Mulji’s articles on a Pushtimargi Jadunath Maharaj’s sexual liaisons with female devotees.

In defence of the film’s subject, the lawyers of the OTT platform and the film production company cited legal battles involving Bandit Queen, Padmaavat, Gangubai Kathiawadi and Faraaz to assert freedom of expression.

For Netflix, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi argued that the petitioner’s contention about inaction by the govt authorities to address their grievance was absurd because they made representation at the last moment and hence the cause of action is “contrived and artificial”.

The film received a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification in May 2023 despite it not being required for its release on an OTT platform. The senior counsel argued that the petitioners claimed to be prominent businessmen of Ahmedabad and they did not seem aware of a book on this subject published in 2013, which did not cause any public disorder. Staying the film causes a lot of problems for the filmmakers, he submitted.

He added that it is based on legal history and whether one likes it or not, history does not change.

For the film company, senior advocate Shalin Mehta said the film does not depict the judgment. “The judgment is not read. The trial is depicted, but not the judgment. The petitioners have a problem with the judgment,” he submitted.