Breaking: Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Movie 'Udaipur Files' Till Centre Decides Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind's Plea For Recalling Certification

The Delhi High Court has stayed the release of the movie 'Udaipur Files' in a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, until the Central Government decides the revision plea to be filed by the Petitioner against certification of the film.

The film is inspired by the story of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur of Rajasthan, who was beheaded, allegedly for a social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma, who had made alleged blasphemous remarks.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) submitted before the Court that 55 excisions have already been made to the movie, amounting to 11 minutes and that the grievance of the Petitioners had been redressed. It also told the Court that the name of Nupur Sharma had been changed and that her controversial remark had been removed.

However, the Petitioner persisted that the theme of the movie itself was against the minority community.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Anish Dayal ordered, "Since we are relegating the Petitioner to revisional remedy, we provide that till the application for grant of interim relief is decided by the Central Government, there shall be stay on release of the film".

"The Petitioner has not taken recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under Section 6 of the Act". The Court further held, "It is not that it is impermissible for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 even in case where the party has not exhaused alternative remedy, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to approach the Central Government invoking Section 6".

The Court ordered, "We also note that the Central Government under Section 6 has been empowered not only to pass final orders, but also to provide for interim measures. Accordingly, we permit, the Petitioner to approach the Central Government by invoking Section 6 within two days from today, and if the Petitioner approaches, Central Government, he may also make prayer for interim measures. The same shall be considered and decided by the Central Government within a period of a week, after giving opportunity to the Producer".

"It is apparent that the producer has admitted uploading the teaser, which contains portions of the film which were ordered to be taken down", the Court observed in its order.

"As observed above, the film was screened for viewing of the Counsel for parties and their representatives yesterday under orders of Court. Based on such screening, the counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the very intention of the movies is a complete vilification of the community and it has a theme portraying the community as being violent, responsible for causing riots and being in touch with terrorists in a neighbouring country. The film in its thematic expression shows persons belonging to a particular community in negative light...", the Court recorded in its order.

"His submission is that the certificate granted by the Board is not only against statutory principles or guidance for certifying films, which clearly prohibits certification of a film in case it is likely to incite commission of any offence or it posses threat to public order, but the film is also against the guidelines issued by the Central Government", the Court recorded the arguments of the Petitioner.

"In our view, a person, though not an applicant seeking certification, can approach the Central Government invoking its revisional jurisdiction", the Court held. The Court held that the Central Government can suspend or cancel certification of a movie.

The Court held that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 vest the Central Government with revisional powers of the order passed by the Board. Prior to 2023, the Central Government could exercise the power on its own motion, but how it can now be exercised now is not clear. Nonetheless, the revisional powers are available as vested in the Central Government under Section 6. In our opinion, such revisional power can be exercised by the government on its own motion or on motion to be made by a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Board. So far as the statutory remedy after film certification is concerned, it is now available, the person who is not an applicant to the film certification, but is still aggrieved by such certification.

"If we compare Section 6 (of The Cinematograph Act of 1952) before its substitution with the provision existing as on today, we find that both provisions confer on the Central Government revisional powers empowering the Central Government to pass orders in respect of the orders passed by the Board", the Court held.

"It appears to us that so far as the Writ Petition before the Supreme Court is concerned, the mention to list the matter was denied. However, no order appears to be passed to the effect that "let the film be released". Accordingly, we are not convinced with the prayer made by the Respondents to defer the hearing of the Petition", the Court observed in its order.

When the matter was taken up in the morning, the Bench pointed out the Supreme Court’s oral remark allowing the film's release and showed reluctance to pass orders in such a case. The matter was then passed over at the request of Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Petitioner.

Thereafter, Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter before the Supreme Court at 1 pm, submitting that the Delhi High Court seemed hesitant to issue directions against the film's release due to the Supreme Court's decision to not to take up the matter on an urgent basis. Upon which, the Bench of Justice Sudhashu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that it only refused to give an urgent listing and no other orders were passed by the Supreme Court regarding the release of the film.

When the matter was taken up for hearing by the Delhi High Court at 2.30 pm, the Bench took note of the fact that Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter again before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court clarified that it merely refused to grant an urgent listing.

ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the CBFC, submitted that the fact that the Supreme Court refused to list the matter for urgent hearing means the Court has declined to interfere and permitted the release of the movie.

Sibal submitted that the film shows "homosexuality of members of minority community with a child, it depicts it", while reading the guidelines against such scenes.

Sibal submitted that the film contains scenes denigrating women and scenes containing sexual perversion. "There is not one positive characteristic of the targeted community that is presented in the film", he submitted.

The name of Nupur Sharma has been changed to Nutan Sharma, but her remarks are included, he submitted.

The Court asked Sibal to take the Court through the scheme of the statute that provides remedies against such movies.

"Why can't you move the Central Government under Section 5B?", Justice Upadhyay asked.

Sibal responded that the Government has already cleared the movie for screening and that he has no other remedy. He said that the Supreme Court's decision in Amish Devgan's case(2020) lays down the law on the subject. "Today we are running against time, the problem is that", he submitted.

"The CBFC has already issued a show cause notice to them. Despite the fact that the trailer was not cleared, they showed the trailer", Sibal argued.

"I did not see the film at that point in time. ....It was only yesterday when your lordship was pleased to order that the film be displayed for me that I realised that the whole film targets a community. Seeing is believing. This may be my personal perception. Ultimately, your lordships will have to see it", he submitted.

The Counsel for the producers submitted that the trailer has been taken down. Sibal responded that the trailer is still available on the internet.

Sibal submitted that the title of the movie has been changed from 'Gyanvapi files' in the film, but the content has not been changed. He submitted that the CBFC has already found that the movie is capable of disturbing communal harmony.

The Court questioned ASG Sharma about what action has been taken against the producers for contravention of Rule 27 for publishing the trailer. The Court asked, though the producers have taken down the trailer, what action has been taken for contravention "in the wake of the admission" by producers about contravention.

"It is an offence, they admit it, what have you done?", Justice Upadhyay asked the ASG appearing for the CBFC.

ASG responded that the penal provision does not apply to trailers, relying upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court.

"Then why did you issue notice?", Justice Upadhyay asked.

ASG responded by relying upon Judgments submitted that the Cinematograph Act apply only to the film and not to the trailer. He said that the trailer, if exhibited on the internet, will not come within the purview of the Act. He said that notice was issued only on the basis of a judgment of the Bombay High Court.

The Court then said that the notice should have been taken to its conclusion by taking penal action.

"They say that it was under bonafide impression, though it was misplaced. Hence, it is an admission on their part", Chief Justice Upadhyay said. "In the wake of this admission, what about the criminal action," the CJ asked.

The ASG responded, "The law will take its course". The ASG also submitted that the Central Government has the power to revoke certification of the film.

"Once a certificate has been given, there is a presumption. What is challenging is the grant of certification itself", the Chief Justice told the ASG. The Court added that the provision cited by the ASG will not apply and that recovocation is only for exhibition in contravention of the Act.

ASG then submitted that the Petition was filed on July 5, and the Petitioners are trying to pressurise the Court at the last minute. He submitted that the parts that the Petitioners are objecting to have been removed from the film and that the Petitioners have now shifted to the theme of the film, that it is against a particular community.

"Board has done a painstaking, surgical exercise to make 55 excisions, not 1, 2 or 3, but 55 excisions", the ASG submitted. He submitted that the statement made by Nupur Sharma has been removed from the film.

"The Board is conscious of the fact that you must not target generally or specifically a community", the ASG submitted, referring to the cuts made to the movie. The ASG also relied upon the disclaimer that is part of the film. He stressed that the reference to Gyanvapi and a community have been removed. He added that the cuts of 11 minutes have been made to the film.

The ASG submitted that the reference to Hafiz in the movie is a reference to Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan and that the theme of the movie is that Pakistan is trying to disturb communal harmony in India.

The ASG submitted that only the decision-making process and not the decision should be scrutinised under Article 226.

"It is not community specific, it is crime specific", the ASG said while concluding his submissions.

The Counsel for the producer submitted that the dialogues referred to by Sibal have been taken out of context and that the grievance of the Petitioners is redressed with the cuts to the movie. "This is a typical India-Pakistan plot, nothing more than that", he submitted. He submitted that the subjective interpretation of the plot by Sibal is misplaced. He added that there are Muslim characters in the movie who play a positive role and that no community has been villified.

"50% of the Muslims in the movie have been portrayed in a positive light", he submitted. "1800 theatres booked for tomorrow, 1 lakh tickets booked", he submitted.

More reason to stay the release, the magnitude of the release of the film cuts both ways, the CJ remarked.

"What about the trailer, you have taken down, admitting to what has been said in the show cause notice", the CJ asked.

I will request the authority to take a lenient view, the Counsel responded.

Once a certificate is issued after following a rigorous process, there is a legal presumption which is rebuttable. Why should an interim order be passed in the wake of this, the CJ asked Sibal. The CJ also told Sibal that the Bombay High Court has held that the Central Government can be approached seeking revision of the certification.

Sibal responded by submitting that the Act has been amended after the Judgment of the Bombay High Court. Sibal then submitted that it is too late to approach the Central Government since the movie will be released tomorrow. He urged the Court to watch the film. Sibal read the Apex Court's judgment on hate speech. He pointed out the background of the Producer of the film, based on a news article.

"This is not right for the Country, that is all I can say. This is certainly not art, this is criminal vandalism", Sibal said, concluding his submissions.

The Court then proceeded to pass the order.

Background

Yesterday, an oral mention was made before the Supreme Court for urgent listing of the petition in question to seek a stay on the release of the film ‘Udaipur Files’, however, the Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused the same and remarked, “Let it be released”.

The Delhi High Court had ordered a special screening of the movie for the Counsel involved in the case.

The petition filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, alleges that the film promotes hate speech and violates certification guidelines under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Cause Title: Maulana Arshhad Madani v. Union of India & Ors. (W.PP. (C)- 9362/2025)