Delhi HC refuses to entertain plea against CBFC certificate for Taj Story

The movie, produced by CA Suresh Jha, created controversy ever since the makers dropped a film poster showing a statue of Lord Shiva emerging from Taj Mahal’s dome

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to the Paresh Rawal-starrer Taj Story, saying that it cannot act as a “super censor board.”

The movie, produced by CA Suresh Jha, is scheduled to be released on Friday.

The movie, produced by CA Suresh Jha, is scheduled to be released on Friday and has created controversy ever since the makers dropped a film poster showing a statue of Lord Shiva emerging from the Taj Mahal’s dome.

A bench comprising chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the Cinematograph Act does not provide any statutory provision allowing the CBFC to review its own certification.

“There is no provision for review (review of the certificate granted by the censor board) in the Cinematograph Act; we can’t issue such a direction. You haven’t done any research… no case laws, nothing. Just because you think something is not right, you will file it? We’re not a super censor board… try to understand our limitations,” the bench said.

It added, “We cannot interfere like this. Please understand. You should have drawn our attention as to how the certification given is in violation of the principles laid down in the Cinematograph Act.”

The court said that the petitioners, Shakeel Abbas and Chetna Gautam, should have approached the Central government to challenge the certificate, rather than filing a plea in the court, after their counsel Ashish Dixit drew the court’s attention.

Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, empowers the Centre to declare a film uncertified and pass certain interim measures, such as suspension of the certificate, upon an application by the aggrieved person.

With the writing on the wall, the petitioners withdrew the petitions with liberty to approach the Centre. “Section 6 provides a revisional remedy to a person aggrieved by film certification, and it would be more appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Central government by invoking the remedy under Section 6. Counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to invoke the remedy under Section 6. Petitions are thus dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed,” the court said.

In his petition, Abbas, besides seeking to stay the movie’s release in its current form, had requested the court to direct the CBFC to review the certificate granted to the film or impose necessary cuts to safeguard communal harmony. He further sought a direction for the movie to carry a disclaimer stating that it portrays a contested narrative.

The petition said the movie is based on fabricated facts and has been made with a particular propaganda aim of spreading a manipulated history by showing misinformation about the seventh wonder of the world. It went on to add that the movie’s release without cuts has the likelihood of eroding faith in historical scholarship, provoking communal unrest, and damaging the international reputation of the Taj Mahal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

“The movie contains deeply divisive scenes that could provoke communal tensions and disturb peace in society. The film has amplified controversial statements made from time to time by BJP leaders and other Hindutva organizations, which may spark communal unrest nationwide amid growing concerns regarding the potentially inflammatory and divisive content of the movie, which may raise apprehensions of inciting communal disharmony,” the petition said.