Delhi High Court Stays Release Of 'Udaipur Files' Movie, Asks Centre To Decide On Revision Against CBFC Certificate

The Delhi High Court today stayed the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", allowing Islamic clerics body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and other petitioners to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the movie.Till the Central Government took a decision on the interim relief on the petitioner's revision application, the High Court stayed the release of the film. The film, said to be based on the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, was due for release tomorrow. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, through its President Arshad Madani, approached the High Court against the film alleging that it was communally provocative and vilified the Muslim community at large.The High Court however refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction, observing that the petitioners ought to first exhaust their statutory remedy for revision under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.The Court has allowed the petitioners to exercise revisional powers under Section 6 of the Act by Monday. The Court held that a third-party can also invoke the reivisonal powers under Section 6.A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal observed : "Since we are relegating petitioner to invoke revisional remedy, we provide that till the application for grant of interim relief is decided by the govt, if moved by petitioner, there shall be stay on release of the film."The High Court ordered:"Petitioner has not taken recourse to statutory remedy under Section 6 which vests Central govt with adequate powers to declare film to be uncertified or pass orders providing for interim measures like suspension of film from exhibition. It is not that it is impermissible for this court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction even in a case where petitioner approaching court has not exhausted alternative remedy. But having regard to the facts of the case and taking into consideration the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that petitioner ought to have approached central govt under Section 6.Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to approach the central govt by invoking sec 6 of the Act by Monday and in case petitioner approaches the govt, he may also make a prayer for grant of interim prayers. Once the petitioner approaches central govt by filing revision petition, same shall be considered and decided by govt within one week and of course after giving opportunity to the producer as contemplated under Sec 6(3) of the Act. We also direct that the prayer for interim relief if made shall also be considered and decided."Petitioners' arguments To summarise, the petitioners argued that the film depicts the Muslim community in a negative light and shows a member of the minority community indulging in homosexuality with a minor. It was submitted that controversial statements made by Politician Nupur Sharma against Prophet Mohammed have been depicted in the movie, which further makes the movie more communally provocative."The movie starts with a scene where muslim men throws piece of meat in hindu place and another scene shows muslim students being arrested by police. How is it related to the movie? Or murder of that tailor? It is Delhi riots...Please see the film and decide for yourself...This is not right for the country...And this is certainly not art. This is cinematic vandalism," Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, leading the petitioners, had told the Court during rebuttals.The movie is an attempt to vilify the community is the petitioners' crux argument, and they pleaded with the Court to see the movie before arriving at any decision.Whereas, the CBFC and the film producer justified the release of the movie stating that 55 cuts have been made in the movie as a testament to adjust the communal angle, if any. It was submitted that the movie is specific to the crime of Kanhaiya Lal murder and petitioners just want to attack the larger theme of the movie, which is subjective in nature and is protected by Article 19(1)(a).It was also submitted by the CBFC that the hearing on this petition may be deferred in light of another similar petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the film's release.Confusion over SC refusing urgent mentioning but saying 'let the movie be released'At the outset, when the hearing began in the morning before the high court, the bench inquired from Sibal, for Jamiat, if the Supreme Court had passed any order when the matter was mentioned yesterday. The bench asked, "What is reported in newspaper today, that some matter filed by Supreme Court?"The bench was referred to the LiveLaw report of yesterday, wherein, while refusing the urgent hearing of the petition before it, the Supreme Court said: "let it (film) be released".It should be noted that the petition before the Supreme Court has been filed by one Mohammed Javed, who is facing trial as the eighth accused in the case. He sought a stay of the ...

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of 'Udaipur Files' Movie, Asks Centre To Decide On Revision Against CBFC Certificate

Nupur Thapliyal & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of 'Udaipur Files' Movie, Asks Centre To Decide On Revision Against CBFC Certificate

Nupur Thapliyal & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal & Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers