The court said the message should say that the character of Hira, the nautch girl, has nothing to do with the real life of the freedom fighter Mangal Pandey.
Judge A.K. Sikri ruled that the film is not defamatory to the hero of the first war of India's independence as claimed by his descendants.
Pandey's descendants had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction on the screening of the movie on the ground that it is defamatory to the hero of the 1857 revolt.
In the suit, the plaintiffs Raghu Nath Pandey, who claims himself a great-grandson of one of the real brothers of Mangal Pandey, and Omkar Nath Pandey, his son had alleged that the film producer, director and artistes were guilty of distorting history by falsely claiming that the movie was based on "actual events".
The characterisation of Pandey in the film as a drunkard and a regular visitor to the nautch girl and later marrying her is false, baseless and highly defamatory and derogatory to the great son of India, the suit had said.
Before delivering the judgement, Sikri had watched the movie at a cinema hall here.