'Udaipur Files' producers move Supreme Court against Delhi HC order staying film's release

The producers of ‘Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder’ – a film based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal's murder in Udaipur, Rajasthan in 2022 – on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's order staying the July 11 release of the film.

A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant agreed to take it up in a couple of days after senior counsel Gaurav Bhatia mentioned it for urgent hearing.

Bhatia submitted that the high court passed the stay order barely a few hours before the film's July 11 release despite the fact that the Supreme Court itself had refused urgent hearing to another petition filed by an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.

He highlighted that theatres were booked and advance ticket bookings were accepted, and while all arrangements were ready for the film's release, the High Court's stay order came.

He also pointed out that the Supreme Court itself had refused urgent hearing to another petition, filed by an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, against the film.

“Movie is allowed by certificate board, I had the certificate. All theatres were booked...I must say with some responsibility that it's a case of violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court refused to give hearing, but the Delhi High Court interfered and stayed the release,” Bhatia told the Bench.

Produced by Amit Jani, ‘Udaipur Files’ has been directed by Bharat S Shrinate. The cast of the film included actors Vijay Raaz, Rajneesh Duggal, Preeti Jhangiani, Kamlesh Sawant, Kanchi Singh and Mushtaq Khan. It was due to be released on Friday.

However, in an interim order, a Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court had on July 10 stayed the release of the film.

The high court ordered that the stay will remain in effect until the Central Government decided on the revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind against the certification granted to the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

“Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to approach the Central government within two days and in case the petitioners approach the Central government, he may also make a prayer for interim measures. Once the petitioner approaches the Central government with a revision petition, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of one week after giving opportunity to the producer," the high court ordered.

Without going into the merits of the film, the high court said the procedure for challenging CBFC certification must be followed and ensured that no irreparable damage occurred in the meantime.

The order came on two separate petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and journalist Prashant Tandon challenging the CBFC's decision to grant certification to the film.

Madani had sought a stay on the film’s release, alleging that it may lead to communal discord and threaten social harmony as its trailer was replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in 2022.

“Whole film is targeted against the community. Seeing is believing. The lordships will have to decide whether the film can be shown in the context of what is happening in the country,” senior counsel Kapil Sibal had submitted on behalf of Madani.

However, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma had countered Sibal’s arguments, contending the film in question was not community-specific but crime-specific.

Alleging that the film’s trailer distorted facts of tailor Kanhaiya Lal's murder, implying a conspiracy involving religious figures and institutions, the petition pointed out that the actual perpetrators were two individuals with extremist motives.

“The content of the trailer not only appears to specifically target the Muslim community, by depicting a highly prejudicial and distorted view in order to promote a complete breakage of fraternity, cause communal disharmony, but also deliberately references the sensitive and contentious issue of the Gyanvapi Masjid, which is presently sub judice before the District Court of Varanasi as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” Madani submitted.

Alleged references to controversial remarks made by suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma and portrayal of a current Chief Minister in a biased manner could refuel communal tensions reminiscent of 2022, Madani submitted.

Madani’s petition made the Centre, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), production houses and X Corps as parties to the case. It questioned the CBFC's decision to certify the film on the ground that it violated the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and related guidelines.