The producer of ‘Kala Hiran: Battle for Legacy’ – which is allegedly inspired by or based on the 1998 ‘Blackback Incident’, in which several FIRs were registered against Bollywood actor Salman Khan – told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that he will not submit the film for certification to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) until Monday.
After taking cognizance of the applications, the court adjourned the case and listed the petition for further hearing on Monday (July 6).
The statement was made by producer Amit Jani’s lawyer before Justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing of the petition filed by Khan seeking a stay on the production, promotion and release of the film.
“The film will not be sent to the censor board until Monday,” the producer’s lawyer said.
This development comes after the producer’s lawyer reported that Khan’s response to the written statement has not yet been provided to them. However, Khan’s lawyer, Ravi Prakash, informed the court that though the rejoinder has been filed, it is yet to be recorded.
The request in Khan’s lawsuit was made seeking protection of his personal rights.
In his application, the actor said the Supreme Court protected his personal rights in December last year by restricting unauthorized use of his personality, a protection that also included his right to a fair trial. However, despite this, 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 is ostensibly abusing his character’s rights by using his image without his consent for commercial gain, which is contrary to the Supreme Court order issued in December.
In her response filed on June 29, Janney opposed Khan’s motion, asserting that the actor, under the guise of enforcing his personal rights, was seeking to impose sweeping prior restrictions on creative and expressive work based on matters already in the public domain and public discourse. The response stated that the proposed film did not violate the Supreme Court’s December 2025 order. It was said that the director did not use Khan’s actual name, and the film did not represent that the actor had worked on, endorsed or participated in the project. As a result, the response said the allegation of commercial misappropriation or theft of the actor’s identity was completely false.
“The Plaintiff’s misinterpretation of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 11.12.2025 is the sole basis of this application, which shall be forthwith dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. The Application proceeds on conjectures, assumptions and speculative apprehensions, without disclosing any legally sustainable basis for limiting the Defendants’ constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and without acknowledging any alleged similarity or connection with the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Acts Art may legitimately engage with matters that are part of the public record and public discourse, and such engagement cannot, in and of itself, constitute a violation of personality rights.
In response to Jani’s response, Khan described the producer’s claims that he was seeking to control public narratives, claim ownership of public events, or position himself as a private censor as a “mischaracterization” of his case.
The actor explained in the response that he does not claim a monopoly on any historical event or public discourse. It added that his complaint was rather against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of his identity, appearance, physical character and other unique and identifiable characteristics, which, according to him, were deliberately disseminated without his consent to create a direct association with him in the minds of the viewers and to serve as the main commercial attraction of the film.
