Gujarat HC Asks Petitioners to Substantiate Claim of Defamation Over Baloch Dialogue in Film Dhurandhar

The Gujarat High Court recently questioned a petition filed by two members of the Baloch community who alleged that a dialogue in the newly released film Dhurandhar defamed their entire community. The petitioners, Yasin Allarakha Baloch and Ayub Balekhan Baloch from Gandhinagar, sought directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the filmmakers to remove a particular dialogue from the film and its promotional material.

The objectionable dialogue is delivered by a policeman character played by actor Sanjay Dutt and reportedly refers to the Baloch community in a derogatory manner. According to the petitioners, the dialogue compared the community to an untrustworthy animal, thereby portraying them in a poor light. They argued that the statement was not limited to a specific character, gang, or fictional group, but appeared to be a general remark about the community as a whole. On this basis, they claimed that the dialogue was defamatory, hurt community sentiments, and was anti-caste and racial in nature.

During the hearing, Justice A. P. Mayee asked the petitioners to “substantiate” how the dialogue had caused actual prejudice to them. The court pointed out that the film is set in the context of a dispute between two neighbouring countries and largely concerns a region outside India. The judge questioned how members of the Baloch community residing in India were defamed by a dialogue spoken in that specific geopolitical context.

The court orally remarked that the petitioners appeared to be taking the dialogue out of context and emphasized that mere offense or hurt sentiment was not sufficient. The petitioners needed to demonstrate concrete harm or prejudice caused by the dialogue within India.

In essence, while the petitioners argued that the film unfairly generalized and insulted their community, the court focused on the legal threshold for defamation—asking for clear proof of prejudice and relevance—rather than accepting the claim based solely on perceived insult or emotional hurt.