Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stays case against ‘Article 370’ filmmaker Aditya Dhar

“Record was called from the court of forest magistrate, Srinagar; its perusal would reveal that the court has not proceeded in accordance with law,” the court observed on February 6.

Stay on defamation proceedings

• The pre-cognisance notice was issued to the petitioners on December 30, 2025.
• They have been directed to appear on February 7, but there is nothing on record to show that the statement of the complainant or that of the witnesses has been recorded.
• Subject to objections of the other side and till the next date of hearing before the bench, the proceedings in the complaint filed by the respondent shall stay.
• Judgment delivered by Allahabad High Court ruled that a magistrate must first record statements under Section 223 (examination of complainant) BNSS before deciding whether to dismiss the complaint or issue a notice to the accused.
• The Karnataka High Court, in one of verdict clarified that the taking of cognisance only occurs after recording the sworn statement and providing the accused an opportunity to be heard.

‘Depicted as terrorist’

• The case originated from a complaint filed by Ghulam Mohammad Shah before the forest magistrate, Srinagar.
• Shah alleged that the petitioners, filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others, who are involved in the development and production of feature films, used his photograph in the movie Article 370.
• According to the complaint, Shah was depicted as a terrorist within the context of the film’s plot, causing significant harm to his reputation.
• Based on these allegations, the magistrate had issued a pre-cognisance summons for an offence punishable under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deals with defamation.
• The petitioners, filmmakers Aditya Dhar and others, approached the high court seeking relief against an order issued by the magistrate, Srinagar, on December 30, 2025.
• Representing the filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others, senior advocate Syed Faisal Qadri along with DSK legal team including advocates Farman Ali Magrey, Parag Khandhar, Ibrahim Alam, Chandrima Mitra, and Sikander Hayat Khan argued that the magistrate’s order was legally flawed.
• He further argued that the magistrate is under an obligation to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, and the substance of such examination has to be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant, witnesses, and also by the magistrate.