The court directed the filmmakers to file a formal reply within two weeks and strictly mandated that the film cannot be released in theatres or across any OTT streaming platform ahead of the next hearing, scheduled for September 30, 2026.
The Courtroom Arguments: The OTT Loophole & Personality Rights
Representing Salman Khan, Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash pushed for immediate judicial restraint after the makers had previously indicated a targeted September rollout:
The OTT Precaution: While the defense argued that the film could not hit cinemas because CBFC certification was still pending, Khan’s counsel warned that OTT streaming platforms do not mandate prior CBFC theatrical certificates:
“They were publicly claiming a September release. Suppose the movie is quietly released directly on OTT, it will cause immense, irreparable damage to the plaintiff's goodwill and safety.”
The Judicial Order: Taking note of the submission, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded the makers' undertaking that the film is not in a releasable form, directing them to place on record by September 14 their proposed release schedule. The court made it clear that until the matter is heard in full on September 30, no release—theatrical or digital—can take place.
Inside Salman Khan’s Plea: Sub-Judice Prejudice & False Underworld Links
Khan’s application—filed under his overarching omnibus "John Doe" personality rights lawsuit—details several serious objections to the film's promotional campaign:
Unmistakable Resemblance: The suit pointed out that the promotional posters and promotional videos depicted a lead character styled explicitly after Salman Khan—complete with his signature turquoise bracelet, facial grooming, and distinctive body language.
Arms Act Inaccuracy: Khan’s counsel noted that although the actor was formally acquitted of Arms Act charges by a Rajasthan court, the film's key visual art showed the protagonist holding a firearm, deliberately reviving false narratives.
Prejudicing the Judicial Process: With appeals in the 1998 case still pending before appellate courts, the suit argued that dramatizing a parallel "media trial" that declares the protagonist guilty infringes upon Khan’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
Defamatory Allegations: The petition also highlighted that the project attempted to falsely link Khan to underworld syndicates, witness tampering, and international criminal networks, creating a severe threat to his physical security.
Escalating Legal Clampdown on the Project
This is not the first blow dealt to the production by the Delhi High Court:
July 2026 Takedown Order: In late July, the High Court slammed producer Amit Jani’s promotional tactics, observing that "one works hard to build a reputation, and it cannot be allowed to be tarnished like this." The court ordered internet intermediaries, YouTube, and social media platforms to pull down the film's official teaser and related interviews within 24 hours.
Producer’s Counter-Move: Jani subsequently moved the Supreme Court challenging the teaser takedown, arguing that public historical events cannot be monopolized under personality rights.
Trade Verdict:
The High Court’s decisive stance reinforces that personality and publicity rights in India cannot be skirted by slapping a generic title onto a transparently targeted character study. By bringing both theatrical and OTT avenues within the scope of restraint until September 30, the judiciary has effectively frozen the promotional rollout of Kala Hiran, setting a strong precedent for celebrity image protection against unauthorized cinematic adaptations.
