PIL Targets Paresh Rawal’s ‘The Taj Story’: Advocate Shakeel Abbas Alleges Historical Distortion in Delhi HC

New Film ‘The Taj Story’ Faces Legal Hurdle

The focus of a massive court battle has been made against a new movie starring the old actor known as Paresh Rawal. The film is called The Taj Story and now it is subject to a Public Interest Litigation or PIL, which is petitioned in the Delhi High Court. This legal case was filed only days ahead of the planned national release of the film, which put the questionable content of the film under judicial scrutiny.

Advocate Shakeel Abbas is the petitioner and is complaining about the story of the film. He has officially approached the court to step in on the matter saying that the movie poses a danger to public order and cultural heritage. PIL mechanism is a legal device in India, which enables any citizen to make an issue of public interest come to the attention of the court, even when the particular citizen is not affected by the issue directly.

The case is not only against Paresh Rawal who is the main protagonist of the movie. The petition goes on to mention the producers and directors of the movie, such as C.A. Suresh Jha and Tushar Amrish Goel, as responding to the petition. In addition, the PIL also involves the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in the controversy, raising questions on how the film was eligible to be seen by people.

The legal challenge should be filed at the right time because the film will be released on October 31. Mr. Abbas, the petitioner, required an emergency hearing at the High Court. He was optimistic that he would be able to get a court order which could review, alter or even suspend the release of the film. This whole issue is based on the fact that the film is not entertainment but an effort by certain individuals to rewrite history.

Allegations of Historical Distortion at Heart of PIL

The argument of the PIL is that The Taj Story is founded on fabricated facts and historical distortion. Supposedly, advocate Shakeel Abbas claims that the film is not a real piece of art, but a propaganda. According to him, it is created to spread a certain political agenda by deceiving people regarding the origin of one of the most renowned monuments across the globe.

One of the examples of evidence used in the petition is the promotional trailer of the film. As per the plea, the trailer has got a very provocative scene. In this scene, the visible main dome of the Taj Mahal seems to be rising with an alleged figure or idol of the deity of the Hindu faith Lord Shiva. According to the petitioner, such a visual is a misrepresentation that is direct and dangerous.

This imagery literally advances a radical, and broadly rejected marginal theory. The theory is also referred to as the Tejo Mahalaya concept and states that it was not constructed by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan. Rather, it states that the building was a Hindu temple initially, which was conquered and redesigned into a grave. 

This theory has been earlier dismissed many times by the government organization known as Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which is in charge of the monument. Historians and archaeological facts prove that the Taj Mahal was ordered in the 17 th century by Shah Jahan to be used as a mausoleum to his wife, Mumtaz Mahal. This is the PIL that the movie disregards.

The case goes on to accuse the filmmakers of intentionally spreading this falsified account of history. The petitioner asserts that it is to get a political mileage and advance a controversial agenda. The plea implies that the makers of the movie, C.A. Suresh Jha and Tushar Amrish Goel have a track record of making controversial and divisive movies following the same pattern.

Petitioner Warns of Communal Disharmony

In addition to the scholarly controversy of history, the PIL also brings serious consequences into the real world. The petition states that publishing the movie in its present state will result in the creation of communal unrest and will disrupt the peace of the people. The attorney claims that the contents of the movie are too delicate to an extent that they can build a rift between the communities.

The Taj Mahal is not only a structure, but also a UNESCO World Heritage location and the representation of an Indian composite culture. According to the petitioner, distorting its history is assault on this common heritage. The appeal argues that the film is provocative and is likely to cause turmoil in the feelings of different communities and cause unrest especially in sensitive regions.

In order to substantiate this argument, the petition is alluding to the Constitution of India. It refers to Article 51A(f), that as a basic obligation of all citizens is to appreciate and maintain the rich heritage of our composite culture. According to the petitioner, the same responsibility applies to the state authorities, which means that they should not allow the distortion of a national treasure.

According to PIL, such a constitutional responsibility is transferred to the Central Board of Film Certification. It insinuates that the CBFC never made any effort to save this heritage by publishing a film that is a distortion of history. The motion claims that the state has a duty to intervene when a section of media is a direct danger to social order and national soul by distorting a safeguarded monument.

The Specific Demands Made to the Court

The case presented by Shakeel Abbas addresses the Delhi High Court with a number of requests. The main request of the court is to instruct the CBFC to re-visit or re-examine the certification issued by it to The Taja Story. This would make the censor board review once again the contents of the film and the grounds upon which it was allowed to run.

The case is very critical of the activities of the censor board. It charges the CBFC with the lack of due diligence prior to certifying the movie. The plea outlines the board as a silent observer which left the producers to proceed with their promotional efforts such as the controversial trailer regardless of the highly provocative and sensitive subject matter of the movie.

The PIL proposes that the filmmakers should be instructed by the court to include safeguards instead of withdrawing the certification. One of the demands is the visible presence of a prominent disclaimer in all the promotional materials and at the start of the movie.