NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant an urgent hearing of a PIL filed against the upcoming Paresh Rawal-starrer ‘The Taj Story’, seeking to halt its release on October 31 and review its certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The plea alleges that the film distorts historical facts related to the Taj Mahal, which could potentially disturb communal harmony. Filed by advocate Shakeel Abbas, the PIL names the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, CBFC and the film’s producer, director, writer, and actor Paresh Rawal as respondents.
The petitioner requested a review of the CBFC’s nod to the film and that a mandatory disclaimer that the film does not claim to be a true account of history should be displayed before it is shown.
Abbas contends that the film spreads “misleading and manipulated information” on one of India’s most iconic monuments and promotes a partisan political ideology. “The Taj Story portrays a distorted version of history, aiming to push a specific political narrative which could inflame religious sentiments and disrupt public order,” claims the plea.
It further points to a trend of politically charged films, citing “The Kashmir Files” and “The Bengal Files” as examples of movies that have allegedly contributed to a polarising discourse.
The trailer of ‘The Taj Story’ was released on October 16, eliciting widespread attention and criticism for its controversial depiction of historical events. It is shown in the film that Lord Shiva emerges from the dome of the Taj Mahal, which the petition claims is an attempt to show that the historic monument was originally a temple, tampering with historical facts. Despite this, the CBFC reportedly allowed the trailer’s release without adequate scrutiny.
The petition urged the High Court to direct the CBFC to re-examine the film’s certification, add a clear disclaimer clarifying the fictional nature of its content, and consider removing objectionable scenes or reclassifying it with an ‘Adults Only’ rating.
The court, however, declined to take up the matter for immediate hearing, which means the film will have a scheduled release unless further judicial intervention occurs.
Agencies