Xtromirit: post - done

2026-03-16T21:04:05Z

post - done

New page

{{Short description|1862 trial in Bombay Court}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Maharaj libel case
| court = Supreme Court of Bombay
| start date = 14 May 1861
| full name = Jadunath Brijratanjee Maharaj v. Karsandas Mulji and Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina
| date_decided = April 22, 1862<ref name="i207">{{cite web | last=Desk | first=Entertainment | title=Explained: What is the Maharaj Libel Case of 1861? Know why Aamir Khan's son Junaid Khan's debut film didn't release today | website=The Financial Express | date=June 14, 2024 | url=https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-explained-what-is-the-maharaj-libel-case-of-1861-that-inspired-aamir-khans-son-junaid-khans-film-3525173/ | access-date=July 20, 2025}}</ref>
| judges =
| ChiefJudge = Chief Justice Matthew Richard Sausse
| AssociateJudges = Justice Joseph Arnould
| verdict = Plaintiff awarded {{INR}}5; defendant awarded {{INR}} 11,500 in costs
| italic title=no
}}
The '''Maharaj libel case''' was an 1862 trial in the [[Supreme Court of Bombay]], in [[British Raj|British India]]. The case was initiated by Jadunath Brajratanjee Maharaj against Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina and [[Karsandas Mulji]]. It stemmed from an editorial article they had published, which accused the Vallabhacharya and [[Pushtimarga Sampradaya|Pushtimarg Sect]] of certain alleged controversial practices by their leaders.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/more-controversy-brews-after-stay-order-on-movie-maharaj-101718393210051.html|title=More controversy brews after stay order on movie 'Maharaj'}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://scroll.in/reel/1068811/maharaj-review-a-royal-slog|title='Maharaj' review: A royal slog}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/movie-review/maharaj-movie-review-junaid-khan-and-his-debut-are-both-strictly-passable-9407114/|title=Maharaj movie review: Junaid Khan and his debut are both strictly passable}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/as-maharaj-is-stayed-issue-of-freedom-of-expression-raised-in-1862-libel-case-returns-to-life/articleshow/111001263.cms|title=As 'Maharaj' is stayed, issue of freedom of expression raised in 1862 libel case returns to life}}</ref>

In the 19th century, Pushtimarg encountered attacks from three different fronts. Christian missionaries found it challenging to convert and condemned the tradition's rituals as particularly primitive. Orientalist scholars of Hinduism criticized Pushtimarg as a relatively recent and inauthentic tradition. Reformist intellectuals such as Mulji viewed Pushtimarg as a stereotypical "cult" that kept its followers entrenched in backwardness and superstition. These accusations ultimately coalesced into claims that the Maharajs in Bombay were abusing their female followers under the pretext of reenacting the love between the young Krishna and the milk maidens called Gopis. Jadunath Maharaj, a staunch defender of Pushtimarg, engaged in renowned public debates with Mulji. However, when Mulji published his scathing article in the newspaper ''[[Satyaprakash]]'', titled ''"Hinduo No Asli Dharam Ane Atyar Na Pakhandi Mato"'' the Maharaj took legal action against him.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Introvigne |first=Massimo |title=The Maharaj Case of 1862 and the Guru Jára Case of 2019: The Conflict of Two Sciences |url=https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/tjoc_9_1_4_introvigne.pdf |journal=The Journal of CESNUR |location=Torino, Italy |publisher=CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=40–55 |doi=10.26338/tjoc.2025.9.1.4 |issn=2532-2990}}</ref>

==Background==
[[File:Karsandas Mulji.jpg|thumb|[[Karsandas Mulji]] (1832–1871)|upright=0.8]]
In the article ''"Hinduo No Asli Dharam Ane Atyar Na Pakhandi Mato"'', Karsandas Mulji questioned the values of a Hindu sect called the [[Pushtimarga Sampradaya|Pushtimarg]] or Vallabha Sampradaya. The article was claimed to be libellous by the [[plaintiff]]. In particular were accusations that Jadunath had sexual liaisons with women followers and that men were expected to show their devotion by offering their female family members for sex with the religious leaders.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Shodhan|first1=A.|year=1997|title=Women in the Maharaj libel case: a re-examination|journal=Indian Journal of Gender Studies|volume=4|issue=2|pages=123–39|doi=10.1177/097152159700400201|pmid=12321343|s2cid=25866333}}</ref><ref name=":1" />

Jadunath was a religious leader of the Vaishnavite Pushtimarg sect of Hinduism. The sect was founded in the 16th century by [[Vallabha]] and worships [[Krishna]] as the supreme being. The leadership of the sect remained with Vallabha's direct male descendants, who possess the titles of ''[[maharaja]]''. Theologically, Vallabha and his descendants are accorded partial divinity as mediating figures for Krishna's grace who can render Krishna's presence immediately to the devotee.<ref>* {{Cite book |last=Barz |first=Richard |title=Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online |publisher=Brill |year=2018 |editor-last=Jacobsen |editor-first=Knut A. |chapter=Vallabha Sampradāya/Puṣṭimārga |editor-last2=Basu |editor-first2=Helene |editor-last3=Malinar |editor-first3=Angelika |editor-last4=Narayanan |editor-first4=Vasudha}}</ref>{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=255}}

The Pushtimarg's followers in Gujarat, Kathiyawad, Kutch, and central India were rich merchants, bankers, and farmers, including the [[Bhatia caste|Bhatia]], [[Lohana]], and [[Bania (caste)|Baniya]] castes.{{Sfn|Thakkar|1997|p=48}} Many of these mercantile groups migrated to Bombay under British rule as the city was the political and financial capital of western India.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=269}} The merchant groups were headed by merchant-princes or [[Sheth|''seṭh''s]] who were heavily involved in the political and cultural milieu of Bombay. The ''seṭh''s, despite their general lack of education, ignorance of the English language, and British political traditions were influential in Bombay society as leaders of business communities and maintainers of cultural honour.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=258-279}}

By the mid-nineteenth century, the British had established political control over the Indian subcontinent and sought to create an administrative-legal framework to manage their colonial interests. British officials sought to compile Indian legal doctrines and apply them to British common law, effectively stripping native groups of civil and criminal self-governance in favour of a unified legal system. This desire to produce legal codes spawned the [[Historiography of India#Orientalist approach|Orientalist school of Indology]], whose grand narrative of Indian history was that of a decline from an ancient golden age into a degenerate, superstitious modern society. The British established schools and colleges that would educate new generations of Anglicized Indians who would be supportive of social reforms. These institutions created a new class of urban English-speaking Indian professionals who claimed to be superior leaders of society than the ''seṭh''s due to their intricate knowledge of the British administrative machinery. These English-speaking professionals joined various religious reform movements that concurred with the Orientalist view of modern Indian religion, and especially opposed the ''seṭh''s for their role in so-called excessive religious patronage.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=258-279}}
[[File:Goswami Jivanlal of Mumbai.jpg|thumb|Goswami Jivanlal of Mumbai playing the sitar.]]
The Pushtimarg religious leaders, known as maharajas, settled in Bombay in the 19th century. Karsandas Mulji, a reformist from an orthodox Pushtimarg family, criticized the maharajas for alleged sexual misconduct. Allegations against the maharajas became public in 1855, leading to a clash between the reformers and the senior-most maharaja, Jivanlal. Jivanlal attempted to silence Pushtimarg critics by threatening excommunication. Mulji responded by publishing a work claiming Pushtimarg was a heretical sect that mistreated women. The Bombay maharajas then brought in Jadunath Brijratan, a prominent maharaja from Surat, to publicly debate Mulji and other reformers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-01 |title=The untold story of Karsandas Mulji, the journalist who won the fight against the Maharaj |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/research/the-untold-story-of-karsandas-mulji-the-journalist-who-won-the-fight-against-the-maharaj-9425977/ |access-date=2024-07-07 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=281-289}}

Eventually, Jadunath Maharaj filed a libel case in the [[Supreme Court of Bombay|Bombay Supreme Court]] on 14 May 1861 against Karsandas Mulji, editor of ''[[Satyaprakash]]'', a Gujarati weekly newspaper, and its publisher Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina, for defaming the plaintiff in an article published on 21 October 1860.{{Sfn|Thakkar|1997|p=46–52}}

== Case and judgement ==
The defense's lawyers sought to have the case thrown out on the argument that Mulji's comments did not attack Jadunath personally but rather as a religious leader, and that a secular court did not have jurisdiction over religious matters. These attempts failed, and the British judges stated Jadunath had the right to defend his reputation in court, but that the case would give no value to Jadunath's status as a religious leader nor to Pushtimarg theology, but rather Jadunath would be treated as an ordinary citizen of the British empire whose actions would be viewed through the British laws of universal morality.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=290-291}}

Jadunath continued to use his traditional means of authority to defeat Mulji and ordered the seths to ensure the loyalty of devotees. In one instance Bhatia ''seṭh''s (including Gokuldas Lilahadhar) convened a meeting of two hundred people of their caste to further this aim. This meeting came to the attention of the British Supreme Court, which resulted in the Bhatia Conspiracy case in which the ''seṭh''s were convicted of mass witness tampering and forced to pay fines to the court.<ref name="Gujarati Vishwakosh2">{{cite book |last=Mehta |first=Makarand |title=Gujarati Vishwakosh (Gujarati Encyclopedia) |publisher=[[Gujarati Vishwakosh|Gujarati Vishwakosh Trust]] |year=2002 |volume=15 |location=Ahmedabad |page=451}}</ref> That case made public the divisions growing in the devotional community over the status of the maharajas and their loyalty to them.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=291-293}}

As modern scholars have argued, the Maharaj had already lost the case before the court started to convene. The British court relied on missionaries and Orientalist scholars as experts. The main expert witness was Dr. John Wilson, both a missionary and an Orientalist,<ref name=":2" /> who has been ''"''actively engaged in criticizing the contemporary forms of Hindu culture in the vicinity of Bombay since the early 1830s''".''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Haberman |first=David L. |date=1993-08-01 |title=On Trial: The Love of the Sixteen Thousand Gopees |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/463355 |journal=History of Religions |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=44–70 |doi=10.1086/463355 |issn=0018-2710|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== Plaintiff's Case ==
Thirty-five witnesses were called by Jadunath's side to serve as character witnesses, all from mercantile castes and including several ''seṭh''s. The devotee witnesses did their best to defend Jadunath with the limited theological knowledge they possessed, but none knew [[Sanskrit]] or [[Braj Bhasha]] and were not fully versed in Pushtimarg history. One notable witness, Gopaldas Madhavdas, stated he did not know of any sexual immoralities conducted by Jadunath or any other Maharaj, and stated they were highly honoured religious leaders of the merchant communities. Gopaldas viewed and venerated the maharajas as [[guru]]s rather than Krishna, but stated that others in the community did view the maharajas as incarnations of Krishna. Another witness, Jamunadas Sevaklal, gave a similar testimony stating he did not know immoralities or sexual orgies of the maharajas, and stated the maharajas in his view were gurus who were the representations of Krishna although others worshipped them as gods. When Gopaldas and Jamunadas were directly questioned on whether the maharajas were gods or humans, they were confused and could not provide definite answers.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=293-296}}

Jadunath himself took the stand and claimed knowledge of Sanskrit, Braj Bhasha, and Gujarati, but then later stated he had never actually read any Braj Bhasha Pushtimarg text. When asked about certain texts that supported the veneration of maharajas, Jadunath stated he was personally unfamiliar with those texts and at one point in the trial claimed the [[Shrinathji Temple]] was in [[Kankroli]] rather than [[Nathdwara]]. Jadunath stated that the maharajas were simply mortal spiritual guides and that only their ancestor Vallabha was an incarnation of Krishna. He stated that the veneration the maharajas received was per Hindu scriptures and that only the maharajas could directly worship the Krishna images, so devotees would worship the maharajas. He denied all sexual allegations relating to him and any other maharaja, stating the adulterous love of Krishna and the gopis in [[Vrindavan]] was merely a metaphor for the relationship between devotees and Krishna, not an endorsement of infidelity.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=296-298}}

== Defense's Case ==
[[File:John Wilson orientalist.jpg|thumb|Engraving of John Wilson]]
Karsandas Mulji himself took the stand and stated the maharajas were oppressive leaders who encouraged sexual debauchery. He stated that Jadunath should rather be sued for libel, given his public attacks against Mulji. Mulji restated his earlier claims that the Pushtimarg was not the "true" Hinduism of the [[Vedic period|Vedic age]], but rather a heretic sect that encouraged devotees to hand over their wives and daughters for the maharajas' pleasure.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=298-299}}
[[File:Dr Bhau Daji Lad.jpg|thumb|Image of Bhau Daji]]
A missionary, Reverend [[John Wilson (Scottish missionary)|John Wilson]], also took the stand. Wilson claimed knowledge of [[Sanskrit]] and [[Old Hindi]] as well as the [[Vedas]], [[Puranas]], and [[Shastra]]s, and was thus sent by the defense as an authority on Hinduism. Wilson, however was not intimately familiar with the [[Pushtimarga Sampradaya|Pushtimarga]] and referred to Professor [[H. H. Wilson|H. H. Wilson's]] works on the sect. He criticized the maharajas for the practice of lavish [[Sevā|seva]] to Krishna, which he stated was in opposition to the asceticism of "true" Hinduism. He stated the maharajas were uneducated spiritual leaders who were worshipped as incarnations of Krishna solely due to their genealogical descent from Vallabha, and that their religious scriptures sanctioned the offering of devotees' wives and daughters to them.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=299-300}} Although presented as "neutral" expert, John Wilson had since the 1830s been a public [[Anti-Hindu sentiment|anti-Hindu]] polemicist. Thus his authority in court relied on his Edinburg university education and associations with European learning societies, all of which promoted an powerful aura of "Western science and rationality".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Fischer-Tine |first=Harald |title=Shyamji Krishnavarma: Sanskrit, Sociology and Anti-Imperialism |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2014 |pages=9-11}}</ref>

Two expert witnesses were also brought to the stand, [[Bhau Daji]] and Dhiraj Dalpatram, who were physicians to Jadunath. They said that they had treated Jadunath and other maharajas for [[syphilis]], which they stated was due to sexual relations with female devotees. Dalpatram even stated that Jadunath had himself admitted to him that he had caught the disease from a female devotee.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=300-301}}

Other witnesses, such as Mathuradas Lowjee, supported the physician's testimonies. Lowjee was a member of the Pushtimarg, but ever since sexual allegations against the maharajas became public in 1855, he kept his distance from the maharajas and refused to venerate them all the while maintaining his theological commitment to the sect. He stated that Pushtimarg devotees, including members of his own [[Bhatia caste]], viewed the maharajas as literal incarnations of Krishna. He stated senior members of the caste had "Ras Mandalis", which re-enacted the dances between Krishna and the gopis. He stated he once stumbled upon a maharaja having sexual intercourse with a female devotee. When Lowjee asked Jivanlal to stop the maharajas illicit behaviour, Jivanlal told him that he could not due to the powerful addiction of male sexual desire, as well as the fact that women's donations were a major source of financial income for the sect.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=301-303}}

Lakhmidas Khimji confirmed Lowjee's testimony, stating he once observed Jadunath grope the breasts of a fourteen-year-old girl and later stumbled upon Jadunath having sexual intercourse with her. Khimji stated on a few occasions that he observed a widow companion of Jadunath procure married women for his sexual pleasure. Kalabhai Lalubhai also claimed Jadunath had sexual relations with women and girls as young as fourteen.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=303}}

== Judgement ==

=== Justice Arnould ===
Justice [[Joseph Arnould]] ruled in favour of Mulji. Arnould was particularly influenced by Reverend Wilson's and Bhau Daji's testimonies. Arnould stated that Mulji's comments in ''Satyaprakash'' were not false and did not specifically attack Jadunath. Arnould agreed that the Pushtimarg was a degraded sect of Hinduism that promoted debauchery and loose morals. He stated Mulji did nothing wrong in exposing the "evil and barbarous" practices of the maharajas.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=304}}

=== Chief Justice Sausse ===
Chief Justice [[Matthew Richard Sausse]] was the senior of the two judges in the case, and overruled Arnould's judgement to find Mulji guilty of libel. Sausse was also greatly impressed by the defense's witnesses, which in his view affirmed the defendant's claim that the Pushtimarg was a [[Heterodoxy|heterodox]] sect and that Jadunath engaged in salacious behaviour. However, Sausse ruled that Mulji took a private dispute within the Pushtimarg and published his grievances in a public newspaper, which was a form of malice. Sausse stated Mulji attacked Jadunath publicly without provocation, and that even if the sexual allegations against Jadunath were true, they were a private matter and newspapers could not attack people on private matters without public interest. Nevertheless, Sausse suspected the reliability of Jadunath and his witnesses' testimonies and only awarded him five rupees on the libel charge. Sausse sided with the defendants on the pleas that the Pushtimarg was a heterodox sect and agreed that the defendant's publications were true, and awarded Mulji eleven thousand five hundred rupees.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=304-306}}{{Sfn|Thakkar|1997|p=46–52}}<ref>{{Cite book |title=Maharaj Libel Case Including Bhattia Conspiracy Case, No. 12047 o f 1861, Supreme Court Plea Side: Jadunathjee Birzrattanjee Maharaj Vs Karsondass Mooljee and Nanabhai Rustamji |publisher=D. Lukhmidass & Co. |year=1911 |location=Bombay |pages=399, 419}}</ref>

==Reaction==
The Maharaj Libel Case tried in [[Queen Victoria|HM Queen Victoria]]'s [[Supreme Court of Bombay]] was hailed at the time as ''“''the most extraordinary of any case tried in any of Her Majesty’s Courts in India''”''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mulji |first=Karsandas |url=https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=9xAkAAAAMAAJ |title=History of the Sect of Mahárájas, Or Vallabhácháryas, in Western India |date=1865 |publisher=Trübner |pages=Appendix 163 |language=en}}</ref> (The Indian Reformer, June 6, 1862, quoted in Mulji 1865, pp. App. 163). It was covered daily by the media in India and even in Europe as one of the trials of the century in British India. The libel case stirred unprecedented interest in the public. Karsandas Mulji's efforts and the court decision received praise from the liberals and the press.{{Sfn|Thakkar|1997|p=46–52}}<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FYDviPFeoSAC&dq=satya+prakash+karsandas+mulji&pg=PT93|title=Shaping Of Modern Gujarat|last=Yagnik|first=Achyut|date=2005-08-24|publisher=Penguin UK|isbn=9788184751857|pages=93–94}}</ref> For his part, Mulji was cited by the local English press as 'Indian Luther', after the Christian reformer [[Martin Luther]].<ref name="Kumar2017">{{cite journal |last=Kumar |first=Anu |date=9 September 2017 |title=The Long History of Priestly Debauchery |url=https://www.epw.in/journal/2017/36/postscript/long-history-priestly-debauchery.html |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |location=Mumbai |volume=52 |issue=36 |pages=79–80 |issn=0012-9976 |eissn=2349-8846 |jstor=26697565}}{{Subscription required}}</ref>

During and after the case, Pushtimarg devotees struggled to come to terms with the sexual allegations against the maharajas. Generally, devotees continued to have social contact with the maharajas as their religious leaders. In the next two decades however, some merchant devotees in Bombay built new temples and theological journals independent of the maharajas.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=307}}

Karsandas Mulji is said to have written a book called ''"The Sect of the Maharajas"'', which was published in 1865. This work does not contain his name as its author, but is, however, attributed to him. It is said to have been revised thoroughly by an “English friend” of his, who was perhaps no other than [[John Wilson (Scottish missionary)|Dr. Wilson]]. In all probability, it was the latter who had much to do with its origin as well as publication. It is written on the lines of the defence made by Karsondas in the Maharaj Libel Case, painting the entire [[sampradaya]] of [[Vallabha]]charya in the darkest of colours. It is altogether negative and destructive the sole purpose of the alleged author or the man behind him being to discredit the movement as much as possible. The book bears on it unmistakably the mark of missionary mentality, and was written and used for the purpose of showing Hinduism in one of its worst aspects. It became an important weapon in the armoury of missionary propaganda concerning the people of India, helping to show them up as stricken with ''‘moral plague’''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Parekh Bhai Manilal C. |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.206566/page/ |title=Sri Vallabhacharya |date=1943}}</ref>

In 1875, [[Dayananda Saraswati]] came to Bombay and attacked the Pushtimarg on similar lines as Mulji, calling it a heterodox sect with false religious leaders who contradicted "true" Hinduism.{{Sfn|Saha|2004|p=209}}

== In popular culture ==
In April 2021, a book titled "Doctrines of Pushtibhaktimarga: Allegations, Conspiracies and Facts" was published. The book was authored by multiple generational practitioners of Pushtimarg, most prominently Dhawal Patel, Pratyush Mehrishi, and Maitri Goswami. It aimed to demystify the misconceptions regarding the true and essential characteristics of Pushtimarga, in light of the allegations presented in court during the Maharaj Libel case of 1862 A.D.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last1=Patel|first1=Dhawal|url=https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yqIqEAAAQBAJ|title=Doctrines of Pushtibhaktimarga: A True representation of the views of Sri Vallabhacharya: In the context of Maharaj Libel Case|last2=Goswami|first2=Maitri|last3=Sharma|first3=Utkarsha|last4=Shirodariya|first4=Umang|last5=Bhatt|first5=Ami|last6=Mehrishi|first6=Pratyush|last7=Goswami|first7=Sharad|date=2021-04-21|publisher=Shree Vallabhacharya Trust, Mandvi - Kutch|isbn=978-93-82786-37-5|language=hi}}</ref>

Saurabh Shah, a Gujarati author and journalist, wrote a novel titled ''Maharaj'' based on the case<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shah |first=Saurabh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N4_1AgAAQBAJ |title=Maharaj - Gujarati eBook |date=2014-01-18 |publisher=R R Sheth & Co Pvt. Ltd. |isbn=9789351221708 }}</ref> which was awarded the Nandshankar award by the Narmad Sahitya Sabha.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shah |first=Saurabh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N4_1AgAAQBAJ |title=Maharaj - Gujarati eBook |date=2014-01-18 |publisher=R R Sheth & Co Pvt Ltd |isbn=9789351221708}}</ref>

[[Netflix]]'s 2024 [[Historical drama|period drama]] film ''[[Maharaj (2024 film)|Maharaj]]'', directed by [[Siddharth P. Malhotra]] and produced by [[Aditya Chopra]] under [[Yash Raj Films|YRF Entertainment]], starring [[Aamir Khan]]’s son Junaid Khan (in his debut) and [[Jaideep Ahlawat]], is based on the Maharaj Libel Case and Saurabh Shah's novel. The [[Gujarat High Court]] stayed the release of the film, based on a Hindu group's plea that claimed the film could incite violence against followers of [[Pushtimarga Sampradaya]].<ref>{{Cite news |title=Court stays release of 'Maharaj', here's everything you need to know about Maharaj Libel Case of 1862 |url=https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/bollywood/court-stays-release-of-maharaj-here-s-everything-you-need-to-know-about-maharaj-libel-case-of-1862-2024-06-13-936828}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=dkbj |date=2024-06-06 |title=Junaid Khan-starrer 'Maharaj' went through 30 writing drafts, 100-plus narrations » Yes Punjab - Latest News from Punjab, India & World |url=https://yespunjab.com/junaid-khan-starrer-maharaj-went-through-30-writing-drafts-100-plus-narrations/ |access-date=2024-06-14 |website=Yes Punjab - Latest News from Punjab, India & World |archive-date=2024-06-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240614031653/https://yespunjab.com/junaid-khan-starrer-maharaj-went-through-30-writing-drafts-100-plus-narrations/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> It was finally released on 21 June 2024 for streaming on Netflix.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/ira-khan-s-new-insta-entry-is-all-about-brother-junaid-khans-debut-film-maharaj-5944236|title=Ira Khan, Kiran Rao Form Junaid's Cheer Squad After Release Of His Debut Film Maharaj}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Sources==
* {{cite thesis |last=Saha|first=Shandip|date=2004|title=Creating a Community of Grace: A History of the Puṣṭi Mārga in Northern and Western India (1493-1905)|url= |type= |chapter= |publisher=University of Ottawa}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Lütt|first1=Jürgen|year=1987|title=Max Weber and the Vallabhacharis|journal=International Sociology|volume=2|issue=3|pages=277–287|doi=10.1177/026858098700200305|s2cid=143677162}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Scott|first1=J. Barton|year=2015|title=How to Defame a God: Public Selfhood in the Maharaj Libel Case|journal=South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies|volume=38|issue=3|pages=387–402|doi=10.1080/00856401.2015.1050161|hdl=1807/95441|s2cid=143251675|hdl-access=free}}
*{{Cite journal|last=Haberman|first=David L.|date=1993-08-01|title=On Trial: The Love of the Sixteen Thousand Gopees|journal=History of Religions|volume=33|issue=1|pages=44–70|doi=10.1086/463355|s2cid=162268682|issn=0018-2710}}
*{{cite journal|last=Thakkar|first=Usha|title=Puppets on the Periphery-Women and Social Reform in 19th Century Gujarati Society|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|volume=32|issue=1–2|location=Mumbai|date=4 January 1997|url=https://www.epw.in/journal/1997/1-2/special-articles/puppets-periphery-women-and-social-reform-19th-century-gujarati|pages=46–52|issn=0012-9976 }}{{Subscription required}}
*Doctrines of Pushtibhaktimarga: A True representation of the views of Sri Vallabhacharya: In the context of Maharaj Libel Case https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=yqIqEAAAQBAJ

==External links ==
* [[iarchive:MN40117ucmf 1|Lukhmidass, D. (1911) Maharaj libel case, including Bhattia conspiracy case, No. 12047 of 1861.]]
*[[iarchive:reportofmaharajl00yadurich|Report of the Maharaj Libel Case and of the Bhattia Conspiracy case connected with it. (1862)]]
* [http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/historicalcases/cases/Maharaj_Libel_Cases_-_1862.html Historical Cases - Maharaj Libel Case, 1862]

[[Category:Bombay High Court]]
[[Category:Legal history of India]]
[[Category:1862 in India]]
[[Category:Journalism in India]]
[[Category:Defamation]]

Maharaj libel case - Revision history

Xtromirit: post - done