Netflix counters Gujarat HC’s stay on release of Junaid Khan starrer Maharaj: “Portrayal of facts of legal history cannot be curtailed”

Neetu

Netflix and Yash Raj Films (YRF) are challenging a temporary stay order on the release of Maharaj, a film featuring actor Aamir Khan’s son Junaid Khan. The Gujarat High Court is scheduled to hear the case again on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, to decide whether the stay order will be lifted or extended.

Netflix counters Gujarat HC’s stay on release of Junaid Khan starrer Maharaj: “Portrayal of facts of legal history cannot be curtailed”

Movie based on historical Libel case

Maharaj is based on the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, a landmark case adjudicated by British judges. The case stemmed from a libel suit filed by religious leader Jadunathji against social reformer Karsandas Mulji. An article published in a weekly newspaper edited by Mulji alleged that Jadunathji had inappropriate relationships with female followers and expected devotees to offer their wives for sex. Mulji won the case.

Legal dispute over Maharaj’s release

On June 13, a day before the film’s scheduled release on Netflix, the High Court had ordered an interim stay on the release after hearing a petition filed by a group claiming to be devotees of Lord Krishna from the Vaishnavite Pustimargi sect.

The petitioners objected to the movie’s release, arguing that excerpts contain “scandalous and defamatory language, which affects the Pustimargi sect as a whole” and that the release of the movie “is likely to incite feelings of hatred and violence against the Pustimargi sect, which would be in breach of code of ethics under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.”

Netflix’s arguments in Maharaj stay case

Netflix and YRF argue that the petitioners are attempting to curtail the portrayal of factual events from legal history. They further argue that the movie has already secured certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that the film does not depict the parts considered “scandalous” by the petitioners.