“Where Is The Adjudication On Their Prayer Of Revision?”: Delhi High Court Questions Centre’s Order Imposing 6 Cuts On Udaipur Files

The Delhi High Court today disposed of two writ petitions against the Centre’s revisional order directing further cuts to the film Udaipur Files, after the Government agreed to withdraw the order. The Court recorded that a fresh decision will now be taken by the Central Government on the pending revision petition under Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “To say that we recommended cuts…From where do you derive this power? In that case, you defeated their right to revision. Where is the adjudication on their prayer of revision? It is not a representation. It is a revision under Section 6 and you are not exercising general powers.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. Senior Advocates Menaka Guruswamy and Gaurav Bhatia appeared for the accused challenging the release and the Producer respectively. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Central Government and the CBFC.

Opening the arguments, ASG Sharma referred to Sections 5B and 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act and stated, “It is a legal question which has to be answered legally… if it is not done, it is deemed in law that the revision petition is dismissed.” He submitted that the Centre had “kept a distance” from the process, adding, “Cuts were there. It is all beyond the statute.”

The Chief Justice questioned the basis of the Government’s directions, asking, “What exactly did you do? You made certain directions over and above what was done by the Film Certification Board, which is not permissible here.” He noted that Rule 25 of the relevant Rules did not outline any procedure authorising such a revisional order and said that relying on those Rules was “highly misplaced.”

Justice Gedela observed that what had been issued was not a decision but merely an advisory, stating, “That is appreciated.” The Chief Justice added, “We appreciate you gave hearing to all parties. We appreciate all that. The question is still whether you exercised your authority within Section 6(2) or not.”

Sharma clarified that he was not arguing that the Rules or Section 5B(2) could override Section 6(2). The Court, however, responded, “Let’s not forget that while deleting Section 6(1), the heading of Section 6 is not deleted… Revisional powers of central govt, this heading still continues.”

When Sharma said there was no official notification and the Government had only made recommendations, the Court responded,“You can only say no, this film is unfit to be certified, after consideration… To say that we recommended cuts… you defeated their right to revision.”

Sharma warned that if Section 6(2) were interpreted too rigidly, the Centre would be overwhelmed with revision petitions and said the CBFC was best equipped to deal with them. But the Court underlined that the direction under challenge was issued pursuant to a writ petition under Article 226 and added, “You can’t question the Court direction for organising exhibition of film.”

When Sharma again insisted that the communication issued was only recommendatory, the Court replied, “These are not recommendations. These are directions. ‘Producers of the film are hereby ordered’. It is an order to the producer to take further action… Whether this order leaves any discretion with the producer not to do anything?” Sharma responded that the final discretion still lay with the CBFC, which the Court asked him to confirm, and he said, “Yes.”

The Court then pressed, “What about the petitioner’s grievance? What about their revision petition?” Sharma replied, “They’ve got everything, first the land, now even the sky. What more do they want? First there were 55 cuts, then 6 cuts. They’ve been given everything under the sun.”

The Bench clarified that it was not going into the merits of the film’s content but added, “When there’s a question of jurisdiction of a statutory authority, the Court is duty-bound to examine it. That’s the only issue we’re considering for now.”

Post-lunch, Sharma told the Court, “I have taken instructions. We will withdraw the order. Revisit the order and pass an order in accordance with law.” Based on this assurance, the Court disposed of the two petitions.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producer, informed the Court that the film was originally scheduled for release on July 11 but had already lost 20 days and was now slated for release on August 8 or earlier if theatres were available. The Court assured that the revision petition would be decided before then.

Bhatia also submitted that the producer currently held a valid certificate and urged that there should be no stay on the film’s release. He pointed out that the hearing process had already taken place and said that only a decision on the recommendations now remained. Sharma clarified that the withdrawal was only on account of the “form of order” and “not because of Section 6(2).”

The Court directed that all parties to the revision petition must appear before the competent Government authority on Monday at 2 PM and make their submissions. It further stated that no fresh notice would be required and that no adjournment should be sought. The Government was directed to take a final decision on the revision petition by Wednesday.

The Court clarified, “Any observations made by us in this order or during hearing shall not be construed as our opinion on merits.”

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 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 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 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: Maulana Arshad Madani v. Union of India & Ors.