Gujarat High Court Decides To Watch 'Maharaj' Film Before Further Hearing Plea Challenging Its OTT Release

The Gujarat High Court today decided to watch the film 'Maharaj' featuring Junaid Khan, son of actor Aamir Khan, before further hearing the plea filed on behalf of devotees of Lord Krishna and followers of the Pustimarg sect challenging the movie's release. 

Extending the temporary stay on the release of the movie, a bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Visen remarked in the open court that it would be watching the movie in the interest of justice. This is in accordance with the suggestions put forth before the Court by Yash Raj Films and Netflix.

It may be noted that the movie, produced by Yashraj Films and scheduled to release on Netflix on June 14, was halted by an ad-interim order issued by the High Court on June 13.

The decision came in response to a plea filed on behalf of devotees of Lord Krishna and followers of the Pustimarg sect, who moved the HC. They argued that the movie could disrupt public order and incite violence against their sect and the Hindu religion, which would be in breach of the code of ethics under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The petitioners objected to the movie's OTT release, claiming that parts of it contain “scandalous and defamatory language, which affects the Pustimargi sect as a whole.”

The petitioners claimed the film is allegedly based on the Libel Case of 1862, which included severely blasphemous remarks about Hinduism, Lord Krishna, and devotional songs and hymns, as decided by English judges of the Supreme Court of Bombay.

The petitioners further argued that the release of "Maharaj" was being done secretively, with no trailer or promotional events, to conceal its controversial storyline. They expressed concerns that the release would cause irreparable harm to their religious sentiments. Despite urgently appealing to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to block the film's release, no response was received.

Given the global reach of OTT platforms, the petitioners stressed that rectifying the damage caused by the film's release would be nearly impossible.

The respondents (Netflix and YRF) have objected to the petition's maintainability, and today, the counsel appearing for them argued that the court should watch the movie first and then proceed to consider the merits of the matter.

In response to this, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that he had no objection to the court watching the movie and deciding if the movie hurt religious sentiments. 

The hearing in the matter will continue on June 20