Delhi High Court Directs ‘The Taj Story’ Petitioners to Statutory Remedy, Declines ‘Super Censor Board’ Role

New Delhi – In a significant ruling that reinforces the principles of judicial restraint and adherence to statutory mechanisms, the Delhi High Court has declined to entertain two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the upcoming film, "The Taj Story." A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rebuked the petitioners for inadequate research and for bypassing the available statutory remedy, firmly stating that the court is not a "super censor board."

The petitions, filed by lawyers Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas, sought judicial intervention against the film starring Paresh Rawal, alleging it was based on fabricated facts, propagated "communal propaganda," and had the potential to create public unrest. The petitioners urged the court to direct the CBFC to review its certification, impose cuts, or mandate a disclaimer stating the film's content is not a definitive historical account.

However, after a pointed hearing, the court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their pleas, granting them liberty to approach the Central Government under its revisional jurisdiction as stipulated in Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The court ordered that if such a revision is filed, it should be decided expeditiously.

---

Judicial Restraint and the Limits of Writ Jurisdiction

The hearing was marked by the Bench's clear articulation of the court's limited role in scrutinizing creative works already certified by a statutory body. When the petitioners pressed for a direction to the CBFC to alter the film's disclaimer, Chief Justice Upadhyaya unequivocally remarked, "Are we a super censor board?"

This question encapsulated the court's core reasoning: its function is not to sit in appeal over the CBFC's decisions or to arbitrate on historical accuracy. The Chief Justice further elaborated on the subjective nature of history, which lies beyond the court's adjudicative capacity.

"Even for history, two historians may have different views, but which historian's view is correct, is this something to be decided by us? What are the standards available to us to decide this?" the Court remarked.

The Bench consistently guided the petitioners back to the legal framework governing film certification. The Chief Justice pointedly asked whether the Cinematograph Act contains any provision allowing the CBFC to review its own decision, a query the petitioners could not affirmatively answer. This line of questioning underscored a fundamental legal principle: a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a statutory body to perform an act it has no power to do.

Emphasis on Statutory Remedy under the Cinematograph Act

The pivotal legal issue highlighted by the court was the petitioners' failure to exhaust the available statutory remedy. Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, provides a clear path for any person aggrieved by an order of the CBFC to apply to the Central Government for a revision of that order.

The Bench noted that this revisional remedy was the appropriate forum for the petitioners' grievances. Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit informed the court that the petitioners had not made any representation to the government, further weakening their case for invoking the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

In a sharp critique of the petitioners' preparation, the court admonished them for failing to conduct basic legal research.

"You should have done proper research before filing petition. You should have taken revision petition before government. When you come to court your argument has to be laced with law," the Chief Justice stated.

Justice Gedela added, "Do basic research before coming. You don't have the Act with you, you don't have the Rules... We are not sitting here for you to do your research." This judicial reprimand serves as a potent reminder to the legal fraternity about the prerequisites of filing PILs and the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching constitutional courts.

Improper Joinder of Parties: The Actor's Role

The court also took issue with the decision to implead actor Paresh Rawal as a respondent in the petitions. The Bench clarified that an actor is a professional hired to perform a role and is not responsible for the film's content, which is the purview of the producer and director.

"Why have you made the actor (Paresh Rawal) a party? If tomorrow you file a contempt, would you make the lawyer a party? He [Rawal] is a professional actor, he is not responsible for the content," the Court asserted.

Following the court's direction, the petitioners agreed to remove Rawal's name from the memo of parties. This aspect of the ruling provides crucial guidance on the correct joinder of parties in litigation concerning films, preventing the unnecessary entanglement of artists in legal disputes over content creation.

The Broader Controversy and the Film's Defense

The PILs against "The Taj Story" are part of a larger controversy surrounding the film, which, according to its trailer, questions the historical origins of the Taj Mahal. The petitions alleged that the film is part of a pattern of politically motivated cinema designed to polarize society. Similar concerns were raised by an Ayodhya-based BJP leader, Rajneesh Singh, who filed a separate complaint with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, claiming the film was misleadingly based on a PIL he had filed in 2022.

In response to the allegations, the film's director, Tushar Amrish Goel, and actor Paresh Rawal have defended the movie, stating it is the product of extensive research and not intended to incite communal tension. Rawal, in an interview, emphasized that the filmmakers were careful to avoid "Hindu-Muslim jingoism" and that the film's message is one of acceptance and shared history.

Conclusion and Legal Implications

The Delhi High Court's decision is a masterclass in judicial process and statutory interpretation. By refusing to act as a "super censor," the court has reaffirmed the authority of the CBFC and the Central Government's revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act. The ruling underscores several key takeaways for legal professionals:

1. Exhaustion of Remedies is Paramount: The judiciary will be reluctant to exercise its writ jurisdiction when an effective and available alternative statutory remedy has not been pursued.
   
   
2. PILs Require Rigorous Research: The courts are increasingly scrutinizing PILs for their legal and factual foundations, and poorly prepared petitions will face dismissal and censure.
   
   
3. Judicial Restraint in Artistic Matters: Courts will generally refrain from substituting their own judgment for that of expert bodies like the CBFC, especially on subjective matters like historical interpretation and artistic expression.
   
   
4. Correct Impleadment is Non-Negotiable: Practitioners must carefully consider who the proper parties to a lawsuit are, distinguishing between content creators (producers/directors) and performers (actors).

Ultimately, the court has placed the onus back on the petitioners and the executive branch, directing the dispute towards the channels specifically designed by Parliament to handle it. While granting liberty to approach the Central Government, the Bench made it clear that its order should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the claims, leaving the matter to be decided in accordance with the law by the appropriate authority.