The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to urgently list a plea seeking to stay the release of veteran actor Paresh Rawal’s upcoming film “Taj Story,” which has stirred controversy over its alleged “provocative and fabricated” portrayal of the Taj Mahal’s origins. The movie, produced by CA Suresh Jha, is set to release on Friday and has been the subject of debate since its poster was unveiled, showing a statue of Lord Shiva emerging from the dome of the Taj Mahal.
The plea was moved by advocate Shakeel Abbas, who sought an immediate hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. Abbas argued that the film promotes a distorted narrative about the Taj Mahal and risks disturbing communal harmony due to its “fabricated and divisive content.”
Court’s Response: No Urgency in Listing the Plea
During the brief hearing, Abbas requested the bench to urgently list the matter for the day, stressing that the movie’s release was imminent and that its content could “trigger social unrest.” The bench, however, declined to expedite the listing.
The court responded curtly, saying, “Why today? When was the certification issued? It will be auto-listed. Sorry.” The judges indicated that there was no compelling urgency to deviate from the standard listing procedure, effectively declining to hear the plea on priority.
As a result, the film’s release remains on schedule, pending further court consideration.
Petitioner’s Claims: ‘Fabricated and Provocative Content’
In his petition, Abbas alleged that “Taj Story” presents a distorted and inflammatory version of history, misrepresenting the origins of the Taj Mahal—one of the world’s most celebrated monuments and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
He contended that the film “has been made with a particular propaganda intent to spread manipulated history by showing misinformation about the 7th Wonder of the World.” The petition argues that releasing the film without scrutiny or necessary cuts could have far-reaching social and cultural consequences.
According to Abbas, the movie’s narrative “erodes faith in historical scholarship,” misleads the public, and risks provoking communal unrest by exploiting sensitive religious themes.
The petition further warned that the film’s release “may damage India’s international reputation” by undermining the authenticity and historical integrity of the Taj Mahal—a monument globally recognized as a symbol of love and cultural heritage.
Concerns Over Communal Harmony
The petitioner emphasized that “Taj Story” contains “deeply divisive scenes” which could inflame communal tensions and “disturb peace in society.”
He argued that the film “amplifies controversial statements made by BJP leaders and other Hindutva organizations,” thereby reinforcing ideological narratives that could intensify existing social divisions.
Citing the politically charged atmosphere and the monument’s symbolic value, Abbas urged the court to prevent the movie’s release in its current form, or at the very least, mandate revisions to ensure it does not spread misinformation or incite disharmony.
“The movie contains provocative material that could have real-world implications for public order, especially amid growing concerns about the weaponization of history for political gain,” the plea stated.
Demands to Review CBFC’s Role
In addition to seeking a stay on the film’s release, the petition called upon the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to reconsider or revoke the certificate granted to “Taj Story.”
Abbas requested that the court direct the CBFC to review whether the film complies with existing certification norms—particularly those related to content that could harm public order or offend religious sentiments.
Alternatively, the petitioner suggested that the court order specific disclaimers be displayed before the film, clarifying that it portrays a “contested narrative” rather than established historical fact.
He maintained that the CBFC, by approving the film, failed in its responsibility to safeguard communal harmony and ensure that creative works do not cross into deliberate misinformation or hate propaganda.
About the Film and Its Controversy
Taj Story has been under scrutiny since the release of its promotional poster, which depicted the Taj Mahal’s dome opening to reveal a statue of Lord Shiva. The imagery, critics say, is a direct allusion to the long-debunked conspiracy theory that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple named “Tejo Mahalaya.”
Producer CA Suresh Jha and actor Paresh Rawal, who stars in a leading role, have defended the film as a “fictionalized interpretation” inspired by “alternate historical debates.” However, detractors argue that it deliberately fuels Hindutva-oriented claims that have no basis in verified historical research.
The film reportedly dramatizes a reimagined version of Mughal history, portraying the Taj Mahal not as the mausoleum built by Emperor Shah Jahan for Mumtaz Mahal, but as a structure with supposed “Hindu origins.”
This interpretation has been rejected by historians and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which has repeatedly clarified that there is no evidence to support such claims.
Broader Implications: The Politics of Heritage and Faith
The controversy over “Taj Story” underscores a growing cultural and political battle over India’s historical symbols and monuments. In recent years, debates about the Taj Mahal’s origins have resurfaced periodically, often used as a rhetorical tool in ideological and electoral discourse.
The Taj Mahal, built in the 17th century, has long been a subject of political contention among right-wing groups seeking to reinterpret India’s Islamic architectural legacy through a Hindu nationalist lens.
Critics argue that such efforts distort history and risk alienating communities, while supporters claim they are attempts to “reclaim suppressed truths.”
By featuring such themes in mainstream cinema, “Taj Story” has reignited questions about the limits of creative freedom, historical accountability, and communal responsibility in a polarized society.
Legal and Cultural Precedents
The case also touches upon the balance between freedom of expression and responsible filmmaking—a recurring issue in India’s courts.
Past controversies, such as those surrounding Padmaavat (2018) and The Kerala Story (2023), saw similar petitions demanding stays on release due to allegedly inflammatory or inaccurate portrayals.
In most cases, courts have leaned toward protecting artistic freedom, emphasizing that films certified by the CBFC are presumed to meet legal standards unless proven otherwise.
However, they have also directed filmmakers to include disclaimers clarifying that their works are fictionalized or dramatized versions of history, to prevent public misunderstanding.
Abbas’s petition mirrors these earlier disputes, positioning “Taj Story” as part of a broader trend of “politicized reinterpretations” of history.
What Happens Next
With the Delhi High Court declining to list the petition urgently, “Taj Story” remains on track for its scheduled Friday release unless the petitioner seeks an interim order from a higher bench or another court.
If the plea is heard later, the court may consider whether to review the CBFC’s certification process or require additional disclaimers. However, the current refusal to fast-track the hearing effectively ensures that the film will likely reach audiences before any legal determination.
For now, the controversy surrounding “Taj Story” continues to grow, reflecting once again how historical interpretation and cinematic storytelling remain flashpoints in India’s contemporary political and cultural landscape.
As the debate unfolds, the film’s release will test not only the resilience of free expression but also the capacity of institutions to balance artistic liberty with social responsibility in an era where history itself has become a battleground.
Leave a Reply