The Marathi film Khalid ka Shivaji, directed by Raj Pritam More, has been at the center of a significant controversy despite being selected for numerous film festivals. Several right-wing groups voiced their opposition to the film, arguing that it misrepresents Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the iconic Maratha warrior and ruler who is held in deep reverence across Maharashtra. These groups made direct representations to the Maharashtra government, pressing their concerns and claiming that the film distorts historical facts about the great king.
The film narrates the journey of a young Muslim boy who learns about the life and legacy of Shivaji Maharaj. After undergoing changes suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it was granted a censor certificate on November 12, 2024. However, tensions began to rise soon after the trailer’s release. Right-wing organizations objected strongly to the portrayal of Shivaji Maharaj as a “secular” leader and to the film’s reference to the presence of Muslims in his army. According to them, such depictions were historically inaccurate and could mislead audiences, which further fueled demands for the film’s suspension.
On August 7, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a sudden notice to Raj Pritam More, asking him to appear for a hearing within just one hour. By the evening of the same day, the Ministry suspended the censor certificate for a month, citing “public interest” and the possibility of disturbances to law and order. The suspension order was later formally published in the official gazette on August 20. More, however, challenged this move, claiming before the Bombay High Court that the decision had been taken without affording him a fair hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. He further argued that the suspension, coming just a day before the scheduled release, was not only arbitrary and politically motivated but also an infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
The case came before a bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale. The bench took note of More’s submissions and directed that no further extension of the suspension could be granted unless the filmmaker was first given a proper hearing. The Ministry, represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, assured the Court that More would be informed well in advance and allowed to present his case at least a week before any extension was considered. The Court also instructed the Ministry to take into account any representations made by the filmmaker before the suspension period concludes in early September.
With these directions in place, the matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on September 22, when the Bombay High Court will once again examine the issues surrounding the suspension and the claims of historical misrepresentation that have stirred such strong opposition to the film.
