Maharaj not based on 1862 libel trial but events leading up to it, says HC; release stayed for another day

Last week, a day before the scheduled release of the movie on Netflix on June 13, the High Court had ordered an interim stay on the release after hearing a petition moved by several followers of the Vaishnavite Pustimargi sect who identify themselves as devotees of Lord Krishna. Actor Aamir Khan’s son Junaid Khan is making his debut in the movie.

The petitioners objected to the release of Maharaj on the grounds that they apprehend excerpts of the movie contain “scandalous and defamatory language, which affects the Pustimargi sect as a whole”. They also said the film’s release “is likely to incite feelings of hatred and violence against the Pustimargi sect, which would be in breach of the code of ethics under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021”.  The 1862 libel case was heard and decided by British judges. The case was filed by religious leader Jadunathji against social reformer Karsandas Mulji. Jadunathji  was one of the leaders of the Pustimargi sect. He filed the case after Mulji claimed in an article, published in a weekly newspaper he edited, that the religious leader had alleged sexual liaisons with his female followers and men were expected to show their devotion by offering their wives for sex. The case was dismissed.

While the petitioners contended that the movie is based on the trial, deducing from the pre-release posters of the movie, Yash Raj Films contended the movie was based on a 2013 book written by Gujarati author Saurabh Shah about the case. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, Netflix claimed the portrayal of facts of legal history can’t be curtailed.  Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, representing the petitioners, argued on Thursday on the plea being maintainable, citing the inaction on the part of government authorities and the duty cast on the publisher Netflix. The law obliges a publisher of OTT content to comply with the Code of Ethics Rules, which mandates taking into account religious diversity, public order, said Joshi, adding ,“this is a mandate”.

Submitting that when the base material being used in the movie in itself is “sensational, controversial, incendiary”, the publisher has a higher duty to adhere to the Code of Ethics Rules, Joshi further added that consequences may thus follow, either in the form of penalty or in terms of blocking of the content. Following Justice Vishen’s remark, Joshi submitted he would leave it to the court to decide on whether the movie defames, insults or is derogatory to the religion.    Joshi, however, added if the contention of the respondents – Netflix and Yash Raj Films  – is that they are entitled to show the movie as an expression of art because it is based on true events even though it may be defamatory, he would then want to argue on the judicial precedents set in this regard. The HC has posted the matter for  hearing on Friday while extending the stay on the release.