High Court Intervenes in Defamation Case Against 'Article 370' Filmmaker
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has issued a stay on the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against acclaimed filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others associated with the film Article 370. This significant legal development came during a hearing on February 6, 2026, where the court scrutinized the procedural approach taken by the lower judiciary.
Procedural Lapses Lead to Judicial Stay
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, presiding over the case, highlighted critical procedural deficiencies in the magistrate's handling of the complaint. The court noted that the forest magistrate in Srinagar had issued pre-cognisance summons to the petitioners on December 30, 2025, under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which addresses defamation offenses. However, the magistrate failed to adhere to mandatory legal protocols.
"Record was called from the court of forest magistrate, Srinagar; its perusal would reveal that the court has not proceeded in accordance with law," the High Court observed. Specifically, Justice Kazmi pointed out that there was no evidence on record showing that the complainant's statement or witness testimonies had been formally recorded as required by law.
Legal Framework and Judicial Precedents
The High Court's decision aligns with established judicial precedents emphasizing proper procedure in defamation cases. Citing rulings from the Allahabad High Court and Karnataka High Court, the judgment reiterated that a magistrate must first record statements under Section 223 of the BNSS (examination of complainant) before deciding whether to dismiss a complaint or issue notice to the accused. Cognisance should only occur after recording sworn statements and providing the accused an opportunity to be heard.
Senior advocate Syed Faisal Qadri, representing Aditya Dhar and the other petitioners, argued that the magistrate's order was legally flawed. He emphasized the magistrate's obligation to examine the complainant and witnesses under oath, with the substance of such examination reduced to writing and signed by all parties involved, including the magistrate.
Origins of the Defamation Complaint
The case stems from a complaint filed by Ghulam Mohammad Shah before the forest magistrate in Srinagar. Shah alleged that the petitioners, including filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others involved in the production of Article 370, used his photograph in the movie, depicting him as a terrorist within the film's narrative. This portrayal, according to Shah, caused significant harm to his reputation, leading to the defamation charges.
Based on these allegations, the magistrate had issued the pre-cognisance summons, directing the petitioners to appear on February 7, 2026. However, the High Court's intervention has now put these proceedings on hold, subject to objections from the other side and until the next hearing date.
Implications and Next Steps
The stay order underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring due process in legal proceedings, particularly in sensitive cases involving freedom of expression and reputational rights. By highlighting the magistrate's failure to follow procedural drills, the High Court has reinforced the importance of meticulous adherence to legal standards in criminal defamation matters.
This case continues to draw attention due to its connection to the politically charged film Article 370, which explores themes related to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court's decision to stay the proceedings pending proper examination of the complaint sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, balancing individual rights with cinematic expression.
