Centre Withdraws Order For Cuts In Udaipur Files Film After Delhi High Court Queries, Will Decide On Certification Afresh

After the Delhi High Court on Friday (August 1) questioned the Centre's power in exercise of which it ordered six cuts to the film 'Udaipur Files:Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder', it acceded to withdraw the cuts and undertook to decide on the film certification by Wednesday, i.e. August 06.The film was set to hit the theaters on 11th June. In view of the row over its certification, the producers have now obtained the release date of August 08. As such, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the producer to appear before the govt on Monday at 2 PM and make their submissions. "We further provide that no further notice be issued for parties to appear before revisional authority. We also direct that parties shall not seek adjournment on their appearance on Monday. After hearing parties, appropriate decision as per law shall be taken by revisional authority on the revision petitions by Wednesday," it ordered.The Court was dealing with the pleas filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed (one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case) objecting to the film's release.In the previous hearing, the Court orally questioned the Centre whether it had the authority to pass the kind of order it did to direct effecting six cuts to the film while exercising revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. For context the present Section 6 pertains to revisional powers of the Central Government.Centre will be flooded with revision pleas, will crashDuring the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Mehta submitted that If Section 6(2) is to be construed standalone in this manner, then the Central Government will become a repository which will receive 2 Lakh revision petitions, which might make it a third appellate authority."We cannot. Its the board which can do it. We will be flooded, we will crash," the ASG said.The ASG further said that even in the centre's recommendatory order, it had not gone by Section 6(2)."We have said in compliance of the judgment of High Court. Recommendations is just recommendations..." he added. Centre didn't give recommendations but directionsThe court however remarked:"These are not recommendations. These are directions. “Producers of the film are hereby ordered”. It is an order to the producer to take further action. This order is not to board. It is to producer. Whether this order leaves any discretion with the producer not to do anything?"To this the ASG said that its order stated that 'this was the action should be taken'. The court queried if the Centre would continue to say that there is a discretion left with the CBFC.As the ASG replied in the affirmative the court asked, "Are you sure?" to which the ASG again responded in the affirmative.When the court asked about the petitioner's grievance, to this the ASG said:"They have got the sky. They already had the land. What more do they want? They have got everything under the sun. First came 55 cuts, then 6 cuts". Court remarked that it had not considering anything on merits as it was conscious once film is certified, it cant interfere with opinion of board.Noting that the film has passed muster of very strict procedure, which comprised of experts, the court said, "The power to interfere in such matters is very limited. But once any issue relating to jurisdiction of any statutory authority comes to court, we are bound to decide that. We are solely on that at the moment...law, rule, statute, procedure are to be followed. They are not merely technical. There are safeguards provided against arbitrariness. We are not concerned with the film at all". The ASG at this stage stated on instructions that the court may set aside the order and relegate the matter back to pass an order in accordance with the law.Centre has complied with law and court orderAt the outset ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for CBFC submitted that the Cinematograph Act has to be seen as a whole and construed harmoniously. Referring to Section 6(2) of the Act, he said that an exercise of power under this provision prefaces that it has to be a notification. ASG submitted, "We have not issued the notification. If it is not done, it is deemed in law that the revision petition is dismissed. So far as the cuts are concerned, this follows three things. It follows statutory regime in its entirety because Rule 25 sub rule 10 echoes Section 6(2)". He said, "Has centre violated the mandate of Shankarappa judgment? It has kept it self aware. It has not done anything on its own. The certificate is granted. It is not under challenge. Section 5B(2) there is power which is to be read in the interface of Sec 6(2)(a), which says if i have the power to appoint, i have the power to dismiss. If i have the power to award, i have the power to cancel". The ASG submitted, "What have I done? I have kept a distance. And because there was the court was pleased to ask parties to view the matter, it was...

Centre Withdraws Order For Cuts In Udaipur Files Film After Delhi High Court Queries, Will Decide On Certification Afresh

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Centre Withdraws Order For Cuts In Udaipur Files Film After Delhi High Court Queries, Will Decide On Certification Afresh

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers