38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, August 17, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

SC refuses stay on 'Udaipur Files'; tells petitioners to approach Delhi HC

By Jhanak Sharma      25 July, 2025 03:37 PM      0 Comments
SC refuses stay on Udaipur Files tells petitioners to approach Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the release of film 'Udaipur Files', based on murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli. The court, however, asked the Delhi High Court to consider the challenge to its certification on Monday.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also clarified it has not expressed any views on merits on the movie's release.

The court said the Delhi High Court would examine the challenge made Jamiat Ulema-i- Hind's Arshad Madani and others against the Centre's decision approving the film's release after suggesting six additional cuts.

The court said the film producers' plea against the Delhi High Court's order has become infructuous after the Centre's high-powered committee's decision to examine the film.

The court refused a plea by senior advocate Kapil Sibal for Madani to stay the release till the High Court examined the matter.

"You first go to the High Court, the other side is satisfied with the central government order. So, please go to the High Court, why waste our time," the bench told the counsel.

During the hearing, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producer of the film, submitted every time, this court has ordered in favour of film release, the latest example is the 'Kerala Stories'.

"Let them go to the High Court. I have already lost 12 days. Revisional authority has passed the order," he said.

Sibal, however, said it would not be appropriate for the court to be granting any release to them.

Bhatia said there can't be a perfect which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone. He said 55 plus 6 edits have been made as per the suggestion.

A counsel for an intervenor submitted that no violence has taken place after 'Kashmir Files'.

"This vilification theory is imaginary," he said asking, if any incidents occurred against Muslims after the release of 'the Kashmir Files', 'the Kerala Story' or even post-26/11.

“Was any Muslim targeted? Were Kashmiri Muslims harmed? This vilification theory is a figment of imagination,” the counsel said, maintaining that the social fabric remained intact.

Terming the claims of the petitioners as mountain out of molehill, he said, "They want us to believe this is more profound than Pahalgam or Pulwama.”

Bhatia contended every time the truth is depicted in a film, they act like a censor. "Vilification needs definition; hypersensitivity can’t dictate censorship," he said.

"We need to define what vilification means. Muslims in this country have been people of great virtue, but like any community, vices have emerged in recent years too," he said.

The bench, however, said these are thought-provoking arguments, but when a case comes through the proper legal route, such concerns can be addressed.

The counsel submitted this hypersensitivity syndrome must be checked by the highest court. "A clear message must go out, censorship of this kind cannot stand," he said.

Sibal, however, said, "This case is different, we have seen the film, we are challenging its content, not just clips. In previous cases, the court dealt with promos or excerpts. Here, our challenge is to the substance of the movie itself."

He contended this issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Amish Devgan case and now there is a legal test for what constituted hate speech.

He said in the history of the court, no film has ever been banned after its release

The bench, however, said, "We will request the High Court to take up the matter on Monday and pass a brief, reasoned order."

The court clarified it has not gone into the merits and both parties are being relegated to the High Court.

On July 14, a committee was formed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to reconsider the certification of 'Udaipur Files'.

The committee reviewed the content of the film and recommended six additional changes beyond the 55 cuts already implemented by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

The Delhi HC had on July 10 ordered the Central government to exercise its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act to examine the movie.

A batch of three petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, were filed before the High Court seeking a ban on the movie based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur, for vilifying Muslims. The movie was slated to be released on July 11.

A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal of the High Court asked the petitioners to approach the Central government and stayed the movie release in the meantime.

The movie was said to be based on killing of tailor Kanhaiya Lal for supporting Nupur Sharma in June, 2022. The macabre act by the religious fanatics was recorded on camera, sending shockwaves across the country.
 



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

sc-declines-to-interfere-with-patkars-conviction-in-defamation-case
Trending Judiciary
SC declines to interfere with Patkar's conviction in defamation case

SC refuses to interfere with Medha Patkar’s conviction in 2001 defamation case filed by Delhi L-G V K Saxena, but sets aside ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on her.

11 August, 2025 02:29 PM
sc-directs-for-removing-stray-dogs-in-delhi-ncr
Trending Judiciary
SC directs for removing stray dogs in Delhi NCR

SC orders removal of all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within 8 weeks, to be housed in shelters; warns against obstruction amid rising rabies, dog-bite cases.

11 August, 2025 06:42 PM
hc-judges-in-no-way-inferior-to-sc-judges-sc
Trending Judiciary
HC judges in no way inferior to SC judges: SC

SC affirms HC judges are equal in stature to SC judges; directs apology for unfounded allegations against Telangana HC judge.

12 August, 2025 12:14 PM
law-does-not-require-to-provide-separate-list-of-electors-not-included-in-draft-rolls
Trending Judiciary
Law does not require to provide separate list of electors not included in draft rolls, EC tells SC

EC tells SC no legal mandate to publish separate list or reasons for voters excluded from draft rolls; affected persons can file claims under Form 6.

12 August, 2025 12:33 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email