AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday extended by a day the interim stay on Bollywood star Aamir Khan's son Junaid's debut film "Maharaj", which was scheduled to release on Netflix last week.
A single judge bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen heard the arguments of the respondents, Netflix and Yash Raj Films and the petitioners and posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
The court said that the interim stay on the release of the film will continue till Wednesday.
Eight members of the Pushtimarg sect have filed a petition against the release after seeing articles about the film, which is based on an 1862 defamation case that was heard and decided by British judges.
The petitioners have pointed out that the British-era court, which decided the defamation case, "condemns Hinduism and makes serious condemnable comments against Lord Krishna as well as devotional songs and hymns".
Netflix and production company Yash Raj Films pleaded with the court to lift the interim order banning the release of the film.Appearing for Netflix, senior Supreme Court lawyer Mukul Rohatgi argued that the petitioner's prayer was "absolutely absurd", citing the government's inaction in failing to block the film in less than 24 hours.
He further said that the petitioners' second prayer for cancellation of the censorship certificate of the film, which is more than a year old, is misplaced, as the release of the film on OTT does not require such certification.
The cause of action in the petition, he said, is "completely fabricated and artificial".
Rohatgi said that one of the petitioners, "a prominent businessman from Ahmedabad", did not take any action against the book on which the film was based or the material on the subject available on the internet.
“It is no small thing for someone to make a film, produce it or put it on a platform.It takes a lot of money and effort. ...We lost our first film on Friday. No advanced copy was given,” he submitted.
He said that the film is based on legal history, which cannot be abolished.
The 1862 defamation case centered on a clash between Karsandas Mulji, a Vaishnava religious leader and social reformer, who alleged in an article in a Gujarati weekly that the god had sexual relations with his female devotees.
Yash Raj Films' counsel argued that its dismissal was the only part of the defamation case between Maharaj and the journalist mentioned in the film.No other part of the judgment, which the petitioners have objected to, has been mentioned in the film, he said.
The petitioners have claimed that if the film is allowed to release, their religious sentiments will be "seriously hurt" and it is likely to affect public order and incite violence against followers of the sect.
Earlier, the petitioners had approached the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting requesting it to take immediate steps to stop the release of the film. However, there was no response or action from the ministry, it was said.
He said the release of the film was likely to incite hatred and violence against the Pushti Marg sect, which would be a violation of the code of conduct under the Information Technology Rules and the self-regulation code of Over the Top Technology (OTT)..
A single judge bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen heard the arguments of the respondents, Netflix and Yash Raj Films and the petitioners and posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
The court said that the interim stay on the release of the film will continue till Wednesday.
Eight members of the Pushtimarg sect have filed a petition against the release after seeing articles about the film, which is based on an 1862 defamation case that was heard and decided by British judges.
The petitioners have pointed out that the British-era court, which decided the defamation case, "condemns Hinduism and makes serious condemnable comments against Lord Krishna as well as devotional songs and hymns".
Netflix and production company Yash Raj Films pleaded with the court to lift the interim order banning the release of the film.Appearing for Netflix, senior Supreme Court lawyer Mukul Rohatgi argued that the petitioner's prayer was "absolutely absurd", citing the government's inaction in failing to block the film in less than 24 hours.
He further said that the petitioners' second prayer for cancellation of the censorship certificate of the film, which is more than a year old, is misplaced, as the release of the film on OTT does not require such certification.
The cause of action in the petition, he said, is "completely fabricated and artificial".
Rohatgi said that one of the petitioners, "a prominent businessman from Ahmedabad", did not take any action against the book on which the film was based or the material on the subject available on the internet.
“It is no small thing for someone to make a film, produce it or put it on a platform.It takes a lot of money and effort. ...We lost our first film on Friday. No advanced copy was given,” he submitted.
He said that the film is based on legal history, which cannot be abolished.
The 1862 defamation case centered on a clash between Karsandas Mulji, a Vaishnava religious leader and social reformer, who alleged in an article in a Gujarati weekly that the god had sexual relations with his female devotees.
Yash Raj Films' counsel argued that its dismissal was the only part of the defamation case between Maharaj and the journalist mentioned in the film.No other part of the judgment, which the petitioners have objected to, has been mentioned in the film, he said.
The petitioners have claimed that if the film is allowed to release, their religious sentiments will be "seriously hurt" and it is likely to affect public order and incite violence against followers of the sect.
Earlier, the petitioners had approached the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting requesting it to take immediate steps to stop the release of the film. However, there was no response or action from the ministry, it was said.
He said the release of the film was likely to incite hatred and violence against the Pushti Marg sect, which would be a violation of the code of conduct under the Information Technology Rules and the self-regulation code of Over the Top Technology (OTT)..
