SC asks government to immediately decide on Udaipur Files certification

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the government has adequate powers to declare a film uncertified or suspend its release

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the central government to immediately take a call on whether the film Udaipur Files, based on the 2022 murder of Rajasthan tailor Kanhaiya Lal, should continue to hold its certification, amid allegations that the movie vilifies the Muslim community and threatens communal harmony.

The Supreme Court proceedings arose out of a July 10 order of the Delhi High Court. (ANI)

Citing Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the government has adequate powers to declare a film uncertified or suspend its release if it is found to be against public interest. The court noted that a government panel, constituted on July 14 to examine objections raised by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, was seized of the matter and had scheduled a hearing at 2.30pm on Wednesday.

“In this view of the matter, we find it appropriate to defer the hearing since the matter is pending before the central government,” the bench said, urging all parties to cooperate fully with the panel to enable a prompt decision.

The court allowed Javed, one of the accused in the murder case, to participate in the panel proceedings through legal representation. “Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, we expect that the committee will decide the matter immediately and without any loss of time,” the court added in its order.

Taking note of threats reportedly received by the family members of the film’s producers, the court also directed the concerned police authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure their safety. It will take up the matter next on July 21.

While the filmmakers urged immediate relief, citing heavy losses, the bench responded that it would not be proper to direct the government to decide the matter within 24 hours.

On the issue of the movie affecting the judges, the bench emphasised: “Our judicial officers are not school-going children who are going to be affected by a movie or some dialogues. We are confident about their ability, objectivity, and sense of detachment, attained through training and orientation.” However, it clarified: “At the same time, a person having some apprehension needs to be heard.”

The Supreme Court proceedings arose out of a July 10 order of the Delhi High Court, which stayed the release of Udaipur Files and permitted petitioner Madani to seek revocation of the film’s CBFC certification by filing a representation before the Centre. The high court said: “Since we are relegating the petitioner to invoke revisional remedy, we provide that till the application for grant of interim relief is decided by the government, there shall be a stay on release of the film.”

Challenging the interim stay, the producers, Jani Firefox Media Limited, moved the top court, arguing that the high court’s order lacked any specific reasoning and was based solely on a private screening of the film. Argued through senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, the appeal contended that the high court went beyond the scope of the petition by allowing a prayer for permanent revocation of certification, which had not even been sought.

Udaipur Files is based on the brutal 2022 killing of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, who was hacked to death by two men after he posted content online in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. Her televised remarks about Prophet Muhammad in May that year had triggered widespread protests. The assailants, who filmed themselves claiming responsibility, were arrested by the Rajasthan Police and later charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency, and the trial is underway before a special NIA court in Jaipur.

Javed, represented through senior counsel Maneka Guruswamy, has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the film, contending that its release would prejudice his right to a fair trial. During the hearing, Guruswamy added: “There are several issues with the movie,” she said, citing its portrayal of the judiciary and sensitive communal matters like the Gyanvapi mosque dispute. She argued that the film bordered on hate speech and went beyond permissible limits of free speech.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Madani, argued that the film sought to demonise an entire community, describing it as “a worse form of hate speech” that violated the CBFC’s statutory guidelines as well as a 1991 government advisory against communal content.

“I watched the movie and was shamed by the depiction it had,” he told the bench, describing the film as one that “seeds violence and vilification of the entire community.” Sibal said the content was filled with “hatred, violence, homosexuality, violence against children,” and questioned how such a film could receive certification in a democratic country.

The producers maintain that Udaipur Files is a fictionalised account, not intended to incite hatred but to shed light on efforts by foreign elements to destabilise India’s communal fabric. They argue that the CBFC had approved the film only after the producers complied with 55 mandated edits, including references to the Gyanvapi mosque and Nupur Sharma. They also pointed out that the controversial trailer had been taken down on July 2 and replaced with a revised version.

Representing the film’s producers, Bhatia argued that the Delhi High Court’s interim stay on the movie’s release was without basis, especially since the Udaipur Files had a valid CBFC certificate. “Despite a valid CBFC certificate, I have already lost six days since the movie was going to release last week,” he said, adding that the high court had neither viewed the movie nor provided any reasons for halting its release. He asserted his clients’ fundamental rights under Article 19 and argued that they were being penalized unfairly despite statutory compliance.

The Centre and CBFC defended the certification before the high court, stating that the film focuses on a criminal act and does not target any specific religious group.