In a packed courtroom on Thursday, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain two petitions that sought to halt the release of the film The Taj Story, scheduled to premiere on October 31. The pleas-filed by lawyers Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas-had alleged that the film spreads "communal propaganda" and distorts historical facts surrounding the Taj Mahal.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has no legal power to review its own certification decisions once they are granted.
Background
Both petitioners claimed the movie misrepresents historical narratives and could potentially "ignite communal disharmony." The respondents included the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, CBFC, the production company Swarnim Global Services Pvt. Ltd., producer C.A. Suresh Jha, director Tushar Amrish Goel, writer Saurabh M. Pandey, actor Paresh Rawal, and Zee Music Company.
According to the petition, the filmmakers have allegedly used "misleading visuals" and selective portrayals that present an inaccurate view of history. "The film aims to manipulate public perception and disturb social harmony," the petitioners argued.
However, when questioned by the bench, the petitioners admitted they had not obtained or annexed the official certificate of the film, claiming that it was "not publicly available."
Court's Observations
The bench, in a firm tone, questioned the petitioners about their legal research and understanding of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. "Whether any certification granted by the censor board is reviewable under the Act?" the Chief Justice asked.
When counsel struggled to respond,
Justice Gedela remarked, "Do basic research before coming. You don’t have the Act with you, you don’t have the Rules."
The Chief Justice further clarified that the CBFC has no statutory power to re-examine or review its certification once granted.
“We are not a super censor board,” he said. "Try to understand our limitations. You must work within the framework of the law."
The court also observed that in matters of artistic representation, "versions of history may differ, and no single perspective can claim absolute authenticity."
Decision
After hearing both sides, the bench permitted the petitioners to withdraw their pleas and granted them liberty to approach the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, which provides a revisional remedy against certification decisions.
"The PILs are dismissed as not pressed, with liberty as prayed," the bench dictated in open court.
With that, the matter came to an end-The Taj Story is set to hit theatres on October 31, unless the Central Government decides otherwise after reviewing any future revision applications.
Case Title: Chetna Gautam v. Union of India & Ors.