The Union government has granted conditional clearance for the release of Udaipur Files, a controversial film based on the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan, while directing six additional modifications amid mounting concerns that the film could incite communal disharmony and vilify the Muslim community.
The development was placed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as a bench of justices Surya
Kant and Joymalya Bagchi continued a stay on the release of the film and scheduled the next hearing for July 24 to allow the petitioners to respond to the Union government’s decision.
The bench told the filmmakers that the Centre’s decision would be binding unless it was successfully challenged. “Centre’s order will be binding, unless you challenge it and your plea is allowed,” the bench told senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for the producers.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani and accused Javed respectively, opposed the release of the film and contested the Centre’s clearance.
Also Read:‘Udaipur Files’ film won’t release for now; Supreme Court awaits Centre’s decision
{{/usCountry}}Also Read:‘Udaipur Files’ film won’t release for now; Supreme Court awaits Centre’s decision
{{/usCountry}}On his part, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government had taken a decision on the revision petitions but going “a step more would be infringing upon...” before being interrupted.
While the final decision of the panel has paved the way for the film’s release, the interim stay ordered by the court shall continue, with the justices clarifying that objections to the Union government’s revised clearance could be taken up during the next hearing.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had formed a high-level panel on July 14 to re-examine the certification of Udaipur Files, following the Supreme Court’s direction and in response to objections raised by Madani and others. 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 committee asked that the existing disclaimer be replaced with a newly worded version, accompanied by a voice-over, apart from removing frames in the credits that thank specific individuals. A scene resembling “a Saudi Arabia-style” execution or setting, generated through AI, must be modified, directed the committee, adding all references to a character named “Nutan Sharma” must be replaced with a different name, including on promotional material. It also ordered deletion of some dialogues relating to communal stereotyping.
CBFC had earlier defended its original certification, asserting that the film was a fictionalised narrative inspired by real events and did not portray real individuals or communities. The board highlighted that all 55 mandated cuts were made, including deletion of provocative visuals, disclaimers were inserted, and references to specific places like “Rajasthan” were changed to more generic terms like “Rajya” It also stated that the controversial trailer had been pulled down on July 2 after receiving a show-cause notice.
Udaipur Files is based on the murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur in June 2022, who was hacked to death by two men after he expressed support for Nupur Sharma’s controversial remarks on Prophet Muhammad. The assailants recorded the act and were later charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The case is currently pending before a special NIA court in Jaipur.
The case reached the apex court after the Delhi High Court, on July 10, stayed the film’s release while allowing Madani to move the Union government for revocation of its CBFC certificate. The high court directed that the stay would continue until the Centre decided on the interim relief sought.
The producers, Jani Firefox Media Limited, challenged the stay, arguing through senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia that the high court’s order lacked substantive reasoning and was based solely on a private screening of the film. They also objected to the high court allowing Madani to seek permanent revocation of certification when his petition had not even made such a request.
Appearing for the film’s producers, Bhatia maintained that the film does not vilify any community and was cleared by CBFC only after incorporating 55 edits, including deletion of references to the Gyanvapi mosque and to former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
However, the petitioners argued otherwise. Guruswamy, appearing for one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, contended that the film could prejudice her client’s ongoing trial. Sibal, representing Madani, said the film amounted to an assault on the Muslim community.