The Delhi High Court also noted that the petitioners may approach the Central government to seek a review of the CBFC’s decision under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.
A division bench, while hearing the pleas against the CBFC certification granted to The Taj Story starring actor Paresh Rawal, dismissed them as withdrawn. (Credit: YouTube/ZeeMusicCompany
The Delhi High Court Thursday refused to entertain two petitions seeking review of the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to The Taj Story starring actor Paresh Rawal. The petitioners claimed that the movie is based on “fabricated facts and… a particular propaganda for spreading a manipulated history by showing misinformation” about the Taj Mahal.
Lawyers Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas withdrew their petitions after it was pointed out by the court that there is an alternate statutory remedy available to them — to approach the Central government seeking a review of CBFC’s decision — under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. The provision also empowers the Centre to revoke a previously granted certification for a film.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing the pleas, dismissed them as withdrawn.
“Counsel for both petitioners have argued that they are not against exhibition of film but only intend that the board may direct the producer to insert a disclaimer that the depiction in the film is not history,” said the bench while granting them liberty to take appropriate recourse of revisional powers with the government under Section 6 of the Act.
During the hearing, CJ Upadhyaya, expressing the court’s difficulty in adjudicating the issue on the point of law, remarked, “Even for history, two historians may have different views — which version is to be treated as correct? These are issues which can’t be decided by us. Whatever you believe to be correct history it may not be held to be correct by others, what is the standard available to the court?”
“Are we super Censor Board?… Try to understand our limitations… Difficulty in such matters is … people get charged, please avoid that… There is a remedy available under the statute as well… That is what happens when you lose your reasoned faculties after getting charged; you should’ve done proper research before filing the petition.”The pleas pointed out that The Taj Story asserts that the Unesco World Heritage site may have been built on or is associated with a pre-existing Hindu temple or deity shrine, and that the film’s teaser and promotional posters depict the monument’s dome being lifted to reveal a figure of Lord Shiva.
The petitioners had also expressed apprehension of such films, which are “highly provocative in nature”, “may cause a communal debate and may also lead to communal tensions”, as well as “tourist misbehaviour or demands for unnecessary interventions in the monument”.The film’s trailer shows Rawal as a tourist guide who seeks to uncover supposed mysteries related to what is perhaps India’s most famous monument.
Story continues below this ad
In May 2022, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed a petition seeking a “facts finding committee to study and publish the real History of Taj Mahal”, and also directed to “open the sealed doors (approx. 22 rooms) inside the Taj Mahal to rest the controversy.
The bench comprising Justices Subhash Vidyarthi and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (now Delhi HC CJ) had said that “such issues…should be left to be debated amongst the academicians, scholars and historians”, and ruled that the prayers were “non-justiciable”.
A reference was also made to the Allahabad HC’s adjudication of the case by the petitioners Thursday.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
