< Back
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court
Udaipur Files- Delhi High Court Questions Scope Of Revisional Powers Of Central Government Under Cinematograph Act
|30 July 2025 4:45 PM IST
The Delhi High Court considered a petition filed by the accused in Kanhaiya Lal Murder Case against the release of the film 'Udaipur Files'.
Today, the Delhi High Court, while hearing the petitions filed by one Maulana Arshad Madani and one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, against the release of the film Udaipur Files, questioned the scope of Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which provides for the revisional powers of the Central Government.
The Central Government had ordered six changes to the film Udaipur Files, while exercising its power under Section 6(2) of the Act.
On July 25, the Supreme Court said that it would request the Delhi High Court to consider the case and recorded that the Producer and the accused Mohammed Javed have the liberty to pursue the petition before the High Court.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Mohammed Javed (one of the accused in Kanhaiya Lal murder case) submitted that the right to a fair trial would be infringed if the film is allowed to be released as it will cause prejudice. Guruswamy also submitted that the producers of the film (Jani Firefox) are in contempt of court. While arguing, Guruswamy relied on a compilation of judgments. She highlighted certain facts with regard to the film as the Court has not seen the film.
Upon which, the Chief Justice Upadhyaya replied that court has the right choose whether or not to see the film and asked Guruswamy to address the issue, "What does exactly contempt of courts mean?"
Guruswamy continued to submit on the issue of right to fair trial and emphasised on Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"I doubt that this young man will be left alive if I read out the dialogue", urged Guruswamy.
Guruswamy emphasised that the contention of the accused is that it is irrelevant whether or not the judge will be actually prejudiced by the film.
Guruswamy again relied on Article 19 of the Constitution and submitted that there are "grave consequences of hate speech" and emphasised that in cases involving accused's right to fair trial, right to life, right to not to be prejudiced, right to administration of justice, the Courts have exercised its power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution in favour of the accused in past.
Later, ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union of India and CBFC, submitted that the film has undergone two stage filter test. The Board suggested fifty-five cuts on the ground that it has "generic overtones".
He contended that the case laws relied upon by the Accused (Petitioner in the present case) were not much of assistance because they were based on facts and circumstances of those cases. It was further clarified by ASG that the accused's identity has not been disclosed in the film and his name has also not mentioned in the film.
Sharma continued to submit that approximately sixty-five cuts have been made in the film. He also emphasized that as the judges are trained to view the cases dispassionately and objectively, the test of prudence is not in question.
Sharma said that the submission made by Guruswamy regarding "unreasonably prudent" is itself antithetical to the test of prudence.
"Unless and until we show something so extraordinary that all the three filters missed out, the interference under Article 226 is not possible", said Sharma. The consequence of interference would be that someone will approach the High Court or the Supreme Court with the motive to destabilise the statutory scheme that has been laid out.
However, Chief Justice Upadhyaya raises concern over the fact that Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act which provides for the revisional power of Central Government is very limited after the amendment and can only direct three nature of orders. The Court asked Sharma whether the actions of the Central Government exercising its power under Section 6 of the Act are within the three sub-clauses mentioned.
The Chief Justice asked, "See, What have you done?...any order passed by such a body cannot be set aside by the Government, cannot be reviewed by the Government, therefore Section 6 (1) was struck down."
The Court raises concern over the issue that the nature of order passed by the Central Government has already been enumerated in the statute and asked, "What did you do...effect six more cuts etc...Whether this authority is available under Section 6(2)?"
Chief Justice Upadhyaya told Sharma that earlier the Central Government could have ordered as it may deem fit, however, after the amendment under Section 6(2), the Central Government can only direct three nature of orders under it.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked, "If Revisional Powers are conferred on you under statute...you have to exercise powers within the four corners of the statute. You cannot exercise general administrative powers..."
Consiquently, the Court recorded in its order that the arguments of petitioner has been heard and the arguments of the Union of India and CBFC will continued on Friday.
Case Background
On July 26, 2025, the Supreme Court relegated the parties challenging the order of the Central Government permitting the release of the movie, subject to six further cuts, to the High Court. The Apex Court, however, refused to extend the stay on the release of the movie till then.
On July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter, with Justice Surya Kant observing that the matter may be remitted to the Delhi High Court for interim relief. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant remarked, “It is the right of the society to watch or not watch a movie”, adding, “Judicial officer is duty bound and he or she has to decide the case strictly on the basis of the evidence on record.” On public perception, he said, “The judiciary should remain unaffected by all this nonsense... Most of us don't read newspapers in the morning. We don't care about it.”
On July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court adjourned the pleas connected to the film 'Udaipur Files' after the Central Government informed that it has passed an order requiring six changes to the movie.
The Supreme Court on July 16, 2025, deferred hearing on a plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim stay on the release of the film, in view of a scheduled certification review before the Central Government that afternoon. The Bench directed that all parties be allowed to present their contentions before the Centre, stating, “We can wait for a day or two since the government is taking it up… raise all contentions there.”
Earlier, the producers had sought urgent listing of their plea, saying that the High Court stayed the film's release despite the Censor Board certification.
On July 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of 'Udaipur Files' till the Centre decides on pleas seeking a permanent ban on the film over its potential to "promote disharmony" in society.
Cause Title: Mohammed Javed V. Union of India (WPC 10949 of 2025)