The Netflix movie Maharaj, which premiered on June 21, 2024, is based on the true story of the Maharaj Libel Case of 1862, a landmark legal battle in colonial India that pitted a courageous journalist and social reformer against a powerful religious leader. Directed by Siddharth P. Malhotra and marking the debut of Junaid Khan (son of Aamir Khan), the film adapts Saurabh Shah’s Gujarati novel Maharaj, which itself draws from historical events. Here’s the real story behind the movie:
The Historical Context
The Maharaj Libel Case unfolded in Bombay (now Mumbai) during British colonial rule, a time when social reform movements were challenging entrenched traditions and religious practices. The case centered on Karsandas Mulji, a Gujarati journalist and reformer, and Jadunathji Brijratanji Maharaj, a prominent leader of the Vaishnavite Pushtimarg sect, a Hindu devotional community founded by Vallabhacharya in the 16th century. By the 19th century, the sect had gained significant influence in western India, with its leaders, known as “Maharajas,” wielding considerable spiritual and social power over their followers.
Karsandas Mulji: The Reformer
Karsandas Mulji was born in 1832 into an influential mercantile family in Bombay, devout followers of the Pushtimarg sect. Educated at Elphinstone College and mentored by the scholar-reformer Dadabhai Naoroji, Mulji became a progressive thinker, advocating for women’s rights, widow remarriage, and social justice. His exposure to reformist ideas led him to question the practices of the Pushtimarg leadership, despite his family’s deep ties to the sect. After breaking a taboo by traveling overseas—an act that resulted in his ostracization by his community—Mulji founded the Gujarati newspaper Satyaprakash (“Light of Truth”) in 1861 as a platform to expose societal wrongs.
The Allegations
Mulji’s crusade against the Pushtimarg sect intensified when he published a series of articles accusing its Maharajas of exploiting their followers. The most explosive piece, published on September 21, 1861, was titled “Hinduo No Asli Dharam Ane Atyar Na Pakhandi Mato” (“The True Religion of the Hindus and the Present Hypocritical Opinions”). In it, Mulji alleged that the Maharajas, including Jadunathji, engaged in immoral behavior, specifically sexual liaisons with female devotees under the guise of religious rituals. He claimed that men were expected to demonstrate devotion by offering their wives and daughters to the Maharajas, branding these practices as a “slavery bond” imposed on the sect’s followers.
These accusations weren’t entirely new—rumors of sexual misconduct by the Maharajas had circulated since the 1850s. In response, Jivanlal, a senior Maharaja in Bombay, had forced devotees to sign a document silencing criticism under threat of excommunication, a move Mulji fiercely condemned. To defend their reputation, the Bombay Maharajas enlisted Jadunathji Brijratanji, a respected leader from Surat, to take legal action against Mulji.
The Maharaj Libel Case
On May 14, 1861, Jadunathji filed a libel lawsuit against Mulji and Satyaprakash’s publisher, Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina, in the Bombay Supreme Court, seeking 50,000 rupees in damages. Jadunathji argued that Mulji’s article had tarnished his reputation as a Brahmin, Hindu high priest, and leader of the Vallabhacharya sect, bringing “public scandal, infamy, and disgrace” among Bombay’s Hindu residents. The trial, which began on January 25, 1862, became a sensational public spectacle, dubbed “the greatest trial of modern times since the trial of Warren Hastings,” drawing overflowing crowds to the courtroom.
Mulji was represented by Thomas Chisholm Anstey, a brilliant but controversial lawyer, while Jadunathji’s counsel was Sir Lyttleton Holyoake Bayley. Over the course of the trial, 31 witnesses testified for the plaintiff and 33 for the defense. Among the damning evidence were testimonies from women alleging exploitation by the Maharajas and physicians claiming to have treated Jadunathji and others for sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis. Mulji’s defense rested on the argument that his exposé was a moral stand against corruption, not a malicious attack.
The Verdict
On April 22, 1862, the court delivered a split ruling from its two justices:
- Justice Joseph Arnould ruled in Mulji’s favor, declaring that the article was not libelous. He condemned the Pushtimarg sect as “barbaric” and argued that Mulji’s publication served the public good by exposing moral wrongs. Arnould famously stated, “It is not a question of theology that has been before us! It is a question of morality.”
- Chief Justice Matthew Sausse found Mulji guilty of libel, not because he disputed the article’s factual accuracy, but because he believed the allegations of sexual impropriety were a private matter unfit for public exposure. However, Sausse awarded Jadunathji only 5 rupees in damages—a symbolic slap—while Mulji received 11,500 rupees in legal costs, underscoring the weakness of the plaintiff’s case.
The judgment was a victory for Mulji, cementing his legacy as a pioneer of Indian journalism and social reform. The case set a precedent for freedom of expression and highlighted the judiciary’s role in addressing religious abuses.
Legacy and the Movie
The Maharaj Libel Case remains a pivotal moment in Indian legal and social history, raising enduring questions about the intersection of religion, morality, and free speech. The Netflix film Maharaj brings this story to life, with Junaid Khan portraying Karsandas Mulji and Jaideep Ahlawat as Jadunathji. While rooted in history, the movie takes creative liberties—blending fact with dramatic storytelling—based on Saurabh Shah’s novel. It faced controversy before its release, with members of the Pushtimarg sect petitioning the Gujarat High Court to block it, fearing it would offend religious sentiments. After review, the court lifted the stay, allowing its premiere on Netflix.
Conclusion
The true story behind Maharaj is one of courage and conviction: Karsandas Mulji, a lone journalist, challenged a powerful religious establishment to protect the vulnerable and uphold truth. Over 160 years later, his fight resonates in a film that celebrates his legacy while reminding us of the timeless struggle between justice and unchecked authority.
