Won’t submit Kala Hiran for certification until July 6, HC told after Salman Khan’s plea

THe producer of the take “Kala Hiran: combat for Legacy” — supposedly inspired by, or based on, the 1998 “ black buck incident” in which multiple FIRs were registered against Bollywood worker Salman Khan —told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that he would not submit the film for certification to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) until Monday. Taking note of the submissions, the court adjourned the matter and listed the petition for further hearing on Monday (July 6).The statement was given by counsel for producer Amit Jani before justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing of a petition filed by Khan seeking a stay on the movie’s production, promotion and release.“The movie will not be sent to the censor board till Monday,” the producer’s lawyer said.The development comes after the producer’s counsel submitted that Khan’s rejoinder to the written statement had not yet been served on them. Khan’s counsel senior advocate Ravi Prakash, however, informed the court that while the rejoinder had been filed, it was yet to be taken on record.The application was filed in Khan’s suit seeking protection of his personality rights.In his application, the actor argued that the high court had protected his personality rights in December last year by restraining unauthorised use of his persona, a protection that also encompassed his right to a fair trial. However, despite this order, a poster for the proposed film was released on May 29.He asserted that the character depicted in the poster bears an uncanny resemblance to Khan and that the film ex-facie utilises his personality rights by using his likeness without his consent for commercial gain, contravening the high court’s December order.In its reply filed on June 29, Jani opposed Khan’s application, asserting that the actor, under the guise of enforcing his personality rights, was seeking a blanket prior restraint on a creative and expressive work based on matters already in the public domain and public discourse. The reply stated that the proposed film does not violate the high court’s December 2025 order. It was submitted that neither has the director used Khan’s actual name, nor has the film represented that the actor has acted in, endorsed, or otherwise participated in the project. Consequently, the reply argued, the allegation of commercial misappropriation or theft of the actor’s identity was wholly misconceived.“The plaintiff’s erroneous interpretation of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 11.12.2025 is the sole basis of this Application, which needs to be dismissed straight away by this Hon’ble Court. The Application proceeds on conjectures, assumptions and speculative apprehensions, without disclosing any legally sustainable basis for curtailing the Defendants’ constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and without admitting any alleged resemblance or association with the Plaintiff, it is submitted that artistic works may legitimately engage with matters that form part of public record and public discourse. Such engagement cannot, by itself, constitute infringement of personality rights,” the reply stated.Khan, in response to Jani’s reply, described the producer’s allegations that he was seeking to control public narratives, claim ownership over public events, or set himself up as a private censor as a “mischaracterisation” of his case.In the rejoinder, the actor clarified that he was not claiming a monopoly over any historical event or public discourse. It added that rather, his grievance was against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his identity, likeness, physical persona and other uniquely identifiable attributes, which, according to him, had been deliberately deployed without his consent to create an immediate association with him in the minds of viewers and to serve as the film’s principal commercial draw.