Delhi HC Rejects Petitions Challenging ‘The Taj Story’ Film

Delhi High Court Declines Pleas Against the Taj Story Film Certification

Court Says It Is Not a “Super Censor Board” and Directs Petitioners to Approach Government

Petitioners Alleged Film Distorts History and Could Harm Communal Harmony

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 30, 2025: The Delhi High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) approval of the upcoming film The Taj Story. The movie, starring veteran actor Paresh Rawal, is scheduled for release on October 31, 2025. Petitioners argued that the film spreads misinformation about the Taj Mahal and promotes communal propaganda. However, the court made it clear that it cannot act as a “super censor board” and advised the petitioners to use the legal remedy available under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act by approaching the Central Government.

This ruling has sparked debate about the balance between creative freedom, historical accuracy, and the role of courts in regulating cinema.

The Case in Court

Two lawyers, Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas, filed Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the CBFC’s certification of The Taj Story. They alleged that the film:

Distorts historical facts about the Taj Mahal.
Propagates communal narratives.
Could potentially disturb social harmony.

The petitioners requested the court to direct the CBFC to review its certification and to mandate a disclaimer stating that the film is not a historical account.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter. The judges questioned the petitioners on whether the Cinematograph Act allows the CBFC to review its own decisions. When the petitioners admitted that no such provision exists, the court pointed out that the proper remedy lies with the Central Government.

Court’s Observations

The bench made several important remarks during the hearing:

“We are not super censor boards.” The judges emphasized that the court cannot step into the role of the CBFC.
On disclaimers: The court noted that many works of fiction are based on historical events, but not every film carries a disclaimer. Different historians may have different interpretations, and courts cannot decide which version of history is correct.
On research: Justice Gedela criticized the petitioners for not doing proper legal research before filing the case. The court said arguments must be supported by law, not just personal opinions.
On actors’ responsibility: The bench clarified that actors like Paresh Rawal cannot be held responsible for the content of a film. Responsibility lies with the producer and director.

Petitioners’ Concerns

The petitioners argued that the film’s trailer and promotional material misrepresent history and could mislead the public. They also alleged that the filmmakers have a pattern of producing politically motivated films, citing earlier works like The Kashmir Files and The Bengal Files.

They sought:

A review of the CBFC’s certification.
Stronger disclaimers in the film and its promotions.
Removal of objectionable scenes.
Preventive measures to avoid communal unrest, especially around the Taj Mahal in Agra.

Court’s Decision

The court dismissed the petitions after the petitioners themselves sought to withdraw them. However, the bench granted them liberty to approach the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, which allows the government to revise CBFC decisions.

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot act as parallel censor boards. Instead, the law provides a clear mechanism for grievances through the government’s revisional powers.

Wider Reactions

The case has attracted attention from legal experts, filmmakers, and political commentators.

Legal experts say the judgment highlights the importance of following statutory remedies before approaching courts.
Filmmakers argue that creative freedom must be protected, and courts should not become arbiters of historical truth.
Critics of the film worry that movies like The Taj Story could influence public opinion with distorted narratives.

The Larger Debate: Cinema, History, and Free Speech

This case is part of a larger debate in India about films that deal with sensitive historical or communal subjects. In recent years, movies like Padmaavat, The Kashmir Files, and Adipurush have faced legal challenges and public protests.

Key issues include:

Freedom of expression vs. public order: How far can filmmakers go in reinterpreting history?
Role of CBFC: Should the censor board be stricter in reviewing films with sensitive content?
Judicial restraint: Should courts intervene in artistic matters, or leave them to regulatory bodies and audiences?

The Delhi High Court’s ruling suggests that courts prefer to stay out of such disputes unless there is a clear violation of law.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s refusal to interfere in the certification of The Taj Story underscores the limits of judicial intervention in matters of cinema. By directing petitioners to approach the Central Government, the court reaffirmed that the Cinematograph Act provides the proper legal remedy.

As the film releases, the controversy is likely to continue in public debate, but the court has made it clear that it will not act as a “super censor board.”