E-Paper
Supreme Court asks Delhi HC to hear ‘Udaipur Files’ petitions on Monday
Udaipur Files: The Supreme Court did not stay the release of the film till Monday, underlining that it hadn’t gone into the merits of the case
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to take a call on allowing the release of the movie Udaipur Files, a controversial film based on the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan, and requested the Delhi high court to take up the matter on Monday.
“The high court is requested to take up the said petitions on Monday,” a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, underlining that it hadn’t passed any orders on the merits of the petitions before it. “It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the high court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,” the bench said.
The court passed the order on separate petitions filed by the movie producer Jani Firefox Media Private Limited and Mohammad Javed, the prime accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder trial.
The movie maker had approached the top court against the high court’s July 10 order that temporarily stayed the movie’s release on a petition by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani, who complained that the movie vilifies the Muslim community. A second petition was filed by Javed, the accused, who claimed that the film’s release would prejudice his right to a fair trial.
The high court had stayed the movie to give Madani time to approach the Centre to review the film’s certification. Acting on his revision plea, the Centre cleared the movie on July 21, subject to the filmmaker carrying out six additional edits, in addition to the 55 cuts already implemented.
At Friday’s hearing, the producer told the top court that its petition had become infructuous since the six edits had been made. Javed also said he had filed a fresh petition before the high court to seek a stay on the film’s release.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Madani, informed the court that he had filed a fresh petition against the Centre’s July 21 order. But the bench also told him to approach the high court which will take up the petitions together.
Sibal asked the court to stay the release of the movie till he approaches the high court. “Let it not be released by Monday,” he asked. But the bench didn’t respond to the oral request, noting that Madani’s plea wasn’t before it. “You (Madani) have not come before this court. They (movie producers) have come. If he says, he does not want to pursue the matter as he is not aggrieved by the Centre’s order. We cannot compel him to continue with the case. You should have approached the high court by now,” the bench told Sibal.
Sibal said he hadn’t approached the high court since the matter was pending in the top court. The bench directed the registry to return the petition filed by Madani to his lawyers and present the same before the Delhi high court for being heard on Monday.
The court also heard a separate petition filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal who alleged that Madani has undermined the secular fabric of the country which has sustained despite the numerous terrorist attacks in the past involving members of a minority community and release of movies such as Kashmir Files (2022) and Kerala Story (2023) that were based on themes showing members of a particular community indulging in acts of crime. “This hyper-sensitivity syndrome should be dealt with by the court and this film should be set free. This kind of censorship based on individual perceptions cannot be allowed to exist in this country,” Aggarwal said.
The bench remarked, “All these thought-provoking arguments require to be considered in an appropriate case. This question deserves to be answered. But we feel the matter needs to be heard by the high court and if any aggrieved party comes to us, we will deal with it.”
The court also asked Sibal how this case differed from other movies that had been released in the past. Sibal said, “All cases cited are different from this case for the simple reason that this movie has been seen. In other cases, it was not seen,” he said, referring to the high court’s decision to arrange a private screening of the film for Madani’s lawyers prior to passing the July 10 order.
He also referred to the 2020 decision by the top court in the Amish Devgun case, where the court defined the parameters of hate speech and refused to stay multiple criminal proceedings against the petitioner, a TV journalist.
The court told Sibal that an expert panel constituted by the Centre has reviewed the certification and found it to be fit for release. “When an expert body takes a decision, courts will show deference to it. It does not mean that courts will not interfere. But we will not apply the test of proportionality when there is an expert body,” the bench remarked.
The film producer, represented by senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, stated that the movie was 12 days behind its scheduled release date. “I have followed the law so far and agreed to all cuts proposed. He (Madani) cannot act as a ‘super censor’ and seek a stay on my movie’s release.”
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the accused Javed, pointed out that she has a direct right to challenge the movie’s release as the trial in the Kanhaiya Lal murder trial was at a crucial stage.
Javed is among the eight accused facing trial in the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in June 2022, who was killed in Udaipur after sharing a social media post endorsing the disparaging remarks made against Prophet Muhammad by former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma, during a television debate in May 2022.
