Maharaj-movie-trial-1

Maharaj Injunction - Case proceedings on 13th June 2024

Edited by Dhawal Patel

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Petitioners: Bharat Pranjivandas Mandalia et. al. (Followers of Pushtimarg)

Case Number: SCA 8772 of 2024

Date: 13/06/2024

Judge: Honourable Ms. Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen

Poster of "Maharaj" movie

Executive Summary:

Petitioners' Background: The petitioners are followers of the Pustimargi sect and devotees of Bhagwan Shree Krishna. They expressed concerns about the upcoming release of the movie "Maharaj" on Netflix, scheduled for 14.06.2024.

Content Concerns: The petitioners highlighted that the movie is based on the "Libel Case 1862" judgment, which contains scandalous and defamatory language against the Pustimargi sect. They argued that the movie could incite hatred and violence, violating the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Self-regulation Code of OTT platforms.

Previous Representations: A previous request by another trust (Antarrashtriya Pushtimargiya Vaishnav Parishad) for a private screening and clarification in April 2024 was ignored, raising the petitioners' concerns about secrecy and potential damage once the movie is released.

Legal Basis: The petitioners have requested blocking the movie under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2021 and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They emphasized the irreversible damage that could occur if the movie is released.

Potential Damage: The petitioners argued that stopping the release would not significantly harm the respondents beyond monetary loss, whereas the petitioners would suffer irreparable damage to their sect's reputation and religious sentiments, potentially causing public unrest.

Court's Decision: The court issued notice to the respondents, returnable by 18.06.2024, and granted ad-interim relief as requested in paragraph 11(C) of the petition until the next hearing date. The court also permitted direct and email service for communication.

Conclusion: The court acknowledged the petitioners' concerns and granted temporary relief by halting the release of the movie "Maharaj" until the next hearing, ensuring further examination of the case.

Summary of arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioners, who are followers of the Pushtimarg sect, have raised concerns that the movie is based on an 1862 libel case judgment that contained extremely scandalous and defamatory remarks against their religion and devotional practices.

The key points from the proceedings are:

- The petitioners argue that the 1862 judgment denigrates and scandalizes the entire Pushtimarg sect by misinterpreting their religious texts and beliefs in an offensive manner

- They are apprehensive that if the movie portrays the sect based on that judgment, it could incite hatred, disaffection and even violence against the community

- The producers have maintained secrecy about the movie's content despite queries, which the petitioners see as an adverse inference

- The petitioners have sought urgent directions from the court to block the movie's release on OTT platforms, as the potential damage from its worldwide distribution would be irreversible and impossible to rectify later

The court hearing appears to be focused on whether the movie's content could disturb public order and religious sentiments, necessitating a pre-release restraint under the Information Technology laws.

Maharaj-Libel case proceedings on 13th June 2024

CBFC Certificate of "Maharaj" movie

Petitioner expressed concerns about the potential impact of a movie on their religious sect and community, requesting a legal challenge. Petitioner highlighted issues with public order and the need for proper certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Petitioner emphasized the importance of the 2021 rules in regulating online content, and mentioned the Information Technology intermediary guideline rules, 2021, for blocking content that incites violence or violates religious sentiments. The conversation focused on the governance of online intermediaries in India, including the legal framework and intermediaries' role in hosting and regulating the content.

Outline

A movie based on a 1862 Maharaj libel case.

• Counsel questions the fairness of a practice system.
• Counsel mentions the 1862 Maharaja libel case as inspiration for a movie starring So and So.
• The movie is based on a true story of a legal battle in 1862 between a journalist and a prominent figure in a sect.

Impact of movie based on 1862 Maharaja libel case on Hindu sect.

• Counsel argues movie based on 1862 libel case, seeks emergency measures.
• Counsel requests audience to read judgment, denounces sect's lack of moral feeling.
• Counsel highlights how judgment may incite hatred towards a sect, worrying about places of worship.

Movie certification and potential for censorship.

• Producer and trust decline to answer questions about web series.
• Counsel asserts filmmakers have not disclosed libelous content despite certification.
• Counsel argues for blocking public access to information to maintain public order.

OTT content regulation and liability of intermediaries.

• Intermediaries must ensure content is not defamatory, obscene, or threatening unity.
• Intermediaries in India have no statutory framework for redressal of OTT content issues.
• The legislature has devised a system where intermediaries are not liable for third-party content, but can be held liable if they fail to comply with court or government directions to block or take down illegal content.
• The appropriate government can issue directions to intermediaries to block or take down content, and citizens can file proceedings in court or seek government directions to address illegal content.

Legal implications of a movie based on a libel case, with a focus on potential religious sentiment and public order issues.

• Counsel argues that the movie is defamatory and scandalous against religious sentiments.
• Counsel cites rule 11 of the 2021 rules to demonstrate the grievance redressal mechanism.
• The committee will consider complaints regarding violations in eight areas, including grievances in respect of decisions taken at lower levels.
• The authorized officer can block information or part thereof in case of emergency without giving an opportunity of hearing, and the decision will be reviewed by the secretary Ministry of Information.
• Counsel argues that a judgment in a 1862 case is scandalous and denigrates their sect, inciting religious sentiment and public order issues.
• On balance of convenience, Speaker 2 asserts that approaching the court is necessary due to the producers' failure to take emergent action despite a prima facie case.

Movie release and potential defamation of religious sect.

• Counsel argues that the release of the movie is illegal and defamatory, citing a libelous judgment.
• Counsel requests urgent action from the authority, citing a prima facie case and balance of convenience.
• Counsel argues that movie release can cause irreversible damage to religious sect.
• Counsel argues that Netflix's portrayal of a Hindu sect is likely to irreversibly damage the religion's image.

Movie release and potential religious offense.

• Speaker 2 argues that a movie's release is blocked due to religious offense.
• Petitioners demand Netflix and others stop sharing or uploading the movie "Bharat" due to scandalous content.

Movie release and potential harm to community.

• Petitioners argue film based on libel case may harm sector.
• Maharaja's life movie release may incite hatred and violence, breaching ethics codes.
• Unknown Speaker: Adverse inference drawn from respondent's secrecy.