Jalna | Special Correspondent | 4 November 2026: Advocate Mahesh Dhannawat has called for the release of the Marathi film ‘Maharashtra Epstein Files’ to be halted pending scrutiny of potential risks to survivors’ dignity, privacy and the fairness of proceedings arising from the Ashok Kharat case. He argues that commercial entertainment must never come at the expense of women who may have experienced abuse.
Reports published on 31 October confirm the film’s trailer launch and identify Manoj Joshi as portraying Ashok Kharat, Subodh Bhave as portraying Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, and Deepali Sayyed in a prominent role. Media reports list 20 November 2026 as the planned release date, although the actual release status requires independent confirmation.
Kharat was arrested earlier in 2026 in connection with allegations of sexual assault and exploitation. These remain allegations to be adjudicated through due process. Dhannawat says publicity built around sensitive evidence or recognisable portrayals of complainants could inflict further harm and potentially affect witnesses.
According to Dhannawat, a distinction must be maintained between exposing superstition in the public interest and sensationalising the suffering of complainants. He has urged the authorities to review the completed film, trailer and promotional material before allowing release, and to consider lawful interim restrictions if specific risks are established.
The constitutional balance is important. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of expression, subject to permissible restrictions under Article 19(2); Article 21 protects life, liberty, dignity and privacy. Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita restricts disclosure of the identity of victims of specified sexual offences. Whether any provision has been breached cannot be determined without reviewing the film.
In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v SEBI (2012), the Supreme Court addressed narrowly tailored postponement orders where reporting could prejudice justice. R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994) discussed privacy rights. Neither judgment creates an automatic blanket ban on films about pending cases. A restriction requires a demonstrable legal basis and a proportionate assessment.
Dhannawat therefore seeks urgent scrutiny by competent authorities, strong safeguards against identification of complainants and, where justified by evidence, a temporary stay on exhibition. He also stresses that intimidation of actors is unacceptable: artistic freedom and survivor protection must both be respected.
No official response from the filmmakers, certification authorities or government has been independently verified for this report. The demand for a ban is Dhannawat’s stated position, not a judicial finding that the film is unlawful.
References: Loksatta, 31 October 2026; ABP Majha, 31 October 2026; The Statesman, 28 May 2026.
Discover more from NewsNation Online
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
आपके लिए सुझाव
Leave a Reply