Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of ‘Udaipur Files’ Movie, Dismisses Accused’s Plea For Interim Relief
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (August 7) refused to stay the release of “Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder” which is scheduled for release on Friday, i.e., August 8.
The court rejected one of the accused in the case Mohammad Javed’s plea for interim relief seeking stay on the release of the film. It however issued notice on the main petition against the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) clearing the certification of the film.
A division bench comprising Chief justice dk upadhyaya and justice tushar rao gedela was hearing the plea filed by Mohammad Javed, accused in the murder case.
In an order passed on Wednesday, the MIB dismissed the revision petitions filed by Javed and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani. This was pursuant to the order passed by the Court. On August 1 the Centre had acceded to withdraw the cuts made to the film and undertook to decide on the film certification by August 06, after the high court had questioned Centre’s power to recommend 6 cuts to the film.
After hearing the matter, the high court while pronouncing its order on the interim plea said:
“We are of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the court that a prima facie case is made out in his favour (for interim relief). The producer has invested huge amount in producing the film. In case the exhibition of the film is stayed, the balance of convenience will be disturbed, which in our opinion lies in favour of the producer…the prayer for stay of the film is rejected“.
Fair trial will die if release is allowed
During the hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for the accused pointed to the MIB’s order and urged the court to see the film. She said,
“Please see whether it violates fair trial or not, whether it has hate speech or not. There is no court in this country where the accused has gone to court that the movie has violated fair trial…Even name of the film is the Kanhaiya Lal murder story. It is exactly the trial of the case…along with the fact that dialogues have been taken from chargesheet…If this is allowed and precedent is created, then no accused in the country wont have a right to fair trial. Fair trial will die if this is allowed in a case like this“
MIB’s order is reasoned
However ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for CBFC said that the person who has signed Wednesday’s order is the competent authority. He said that it has been seen by the cabinet minister, two joint secretaries and other officials and that they have “applied their mind”.
The ASG said that the high court had consciously not gone into the merits of the film and had “kept arm’s length distance with subject matter or its perception or the title or content“.
He said that the film was faulted only the aspect that Centre’s exercise of jurisdiction is not in accordance with section 6 of Cinematograph Act as revision is a limited jurisdiction.
The ASG said that there was no argument made by the petitioner as to how the order was bad. “There is argument your lordships should watch this film. We have completed abided what your lordships has told us. This is as fair as it can go. Every party has been heard. It is a reasoned order,” he argued.
Accused not named, movie not exact narration of crime
Meanwhile senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia appearing for the film’s producer submitted that no case for any interim order is made out, adding that tickets have been booked, and movie is scheduled for release on Friday.
Bhatia said that the producing company had invested its lifetime savings in making the movie, while the film was earlier delayed.
“Now the screens are to be available will not be available for next six months…I say it with responsibility, the accused name is not mentioned anywhere. There is no specific theme attributing specific role to the accused here. I hold a valid certificate given by sensor board. The revisional authority order is also in my favour. Mind has been applied by very senior persons. I have received the clearance,” he said.
Bhatia said that no direct link had been shown by the petitioner that due to the trial of the accused will be affected.
He said that the movie is based on the crime but the movie does not claim to be an exact narration of the crime. He further submitted that the movie is “nowhere vilifying the community” and that the message of the movie is positive.
Meanwhile the court at this stage asked is that the question pertains to release of the film in exercise of Article 19 vis a vis accused right to fair trial under Article 21. The court remarked that the main concern in the matter pertains to whether film’s exhibition will affect right to fair trial.
The court at this stage asked, “If the movie is released tomorrow, it will have 55 cuts plus six cuts and disclaimer?“. To this Bhatia replied in the affirmative.
Trial and not film seeks to arrive at truth
Meanwhile Guruswamy argued that the petitioner had presented details from chargesheet regarding portrayal of the petitioner to the committee constituted under Section 6, but it did not deal with chargesheet or the dialogues.
“It is not a film which seeks to arrive at the truth. It is the trial,” she emphasized.
She further submitted that a trial exists in a context of society and courtroom where there is a judge, court masters, witnesses and the public.
“I was 19 (years old) when I was arrested. My family, we all live in the society. The film says I am a conspirator of murder and crime is named very categorically (in the film),” Guruswamy said.
For context, the MIB had said in its order that the competent authority had perused all materials, considered submissions of all parties and the CBFC had certified the film after following the procedure established by law.
“Nothing further or additional has been submitted either orally or through documentary evidence than which was available before the CBFC. It is also noted that while certifying the film, the CBFC has affected 55 cuts/excisions. The revisional authority further notes that apart from 55 cuts, additional cuts/excisions were also made by the producer voluntarily. The parties have not been able to persuade the revisional authority to go beyond what has already been made. There is no infraction of procedure by the Board. The revisionist has failed to show any transgression in the exercise of jurisdiction,” the Ministry said in its order.
Background
On July 25 the Supreme Court had asked the parties objecting to the release of the movie to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre’s revisional order which approved the movie’s exhibition with 6 edits.
Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur-based tailor, was brutally murdered in June 2022, allegedly by one Mohammad Riyaz and one Mohammad Ghous.
The perpetrators later released a video claiming the murder was in retaliation for Kanhaiya Lal allegedly sharing a social media post in support of Nupur Sharma, former BJP spokesperson, soon after she made controversial comments about the Prophet.
The case was investigated by the National Investigation Agency, and offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code framed against the accused. While the trial is progressing before a Special NIA Court in Jaipur, the movie – based on the case – is sought to be released.
On July 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the film, allowing the petitioners before it to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification.
Title: Mohdmmed JaDED v. UNION OF REMOCTION AND ORS