The case revolves around Salman Khan’s allegations that the makers of the film have unlawfully used elements associated with his public identity and personality without authorization. The actor has approached the court seeking a stay on the film’s release, claiming that its promotional material and storyline could harm his reputation.

During the hearing before Justice Jyoti Singh, the court was informed that the film has not yet been submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for certification. Counsel representing the producers clarified that the project is not currently ready for release and assured the court that it would not be sent to the censor board before the next date of hearing.

With the producer’s submission yet to be formally recorded and the certification process still pending, the court chose to defer the matter rather than issue any immediate restrictions on the film.

The development was followed by a public response from producer Amit Jani, who took to social media shortly after the hearing. In his post, Jani said Salman Khan had not obtained any relief from the court and emphasized that no ban had been imposed on the film. He also stated that the matter would now be heard again on July 6.

The producer further remarked that courts function independently of celebrity influence and suggested that stardom would not determine the outcome of the case. He claimed that the film is planned for a large-scale global release and could eventually be screened across thousands of theatres worldwide.

Salman Khan’s petition alleges that the makers have incorporated references that closely resemble his public image. According to the plea, promotional content associated with Kala Hiran features a character bearing similarities to the actor, including a blue bracelet that has long been considered one of Salman’s signature style elements.

The actor has argued that such portrayals amount to a violation of his personality rights and could mislead audiences into associating him with the project. Personality rights generally protect an individual’s name, image, likeness and other identifiable characteristics from unauthorized commercial use.

Another major concern raised in the petition relates to the film’s reported depiction of the 1998 blackbuck hunting case, one of the most closely followed legal matters associated with Salman Khan over the years. The actor has contended that the film allegedly presents certain events inaccurately and could create a misleading narrative around the controversy.

The petition also objects to the reported inclusion of references linked to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and the widely discussed dispute that has drawn significant media attention in recent years. Salman Khan’s legal team has argued that any fictionalized or inaccurate representation of these issues could adversely affect his public image.

The court’s decision to postpone the hearing means the legal battle remains unresolved for now. However, the producer’s undertaking that the film will not be submitted for certification before the next hearing provides a temporary pause in the release process.

The outcome of the July 6 hearing is expected to be significant, as it could determine whether the film proceeds through the certification process or faces further legal scrutiny over the claims raised by the actor.