Delhi HC questions Centre’s authority to order edits to ‘Udaipur Files’

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised pointed questions to the Centre regarding its authority to direct six edits to the film ‘Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder’ while acting on its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a plea by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the murder case, who has objected to the film’s release.

Earlier this week, the court was informed that the Centre had recommended six cuts to the movie, which were complied with, yet the film had not received re-certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

During the hearing, the Bench orally questioned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma whether Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act actually permitted the government to mandate edits.

The Judges pointed out that previous iterations of Section 6, which allowed wide-ranging powers, were struck down by the judiciary and the revised provision did not confer such discretion.

The ASG said the July 10 order of the Delhi High Court, which led to the Centre’s review, was later appealed before the Supreme Court. However, the Bench clarified that their earlier order merely directed the petitioners to explore remedies under Section 6, not for the Centre to take on a quasi-appellate role.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, argued that releasing the film would prejudice the ongoing trial, where over 160 witnesses are yet to be examined. She emphasised that the film draws directly from the chargesheet and contains hate speech.

Guruswamy also argued that the Centre exceeded its powers by instructing cuts and altering disclaimers. She said there were three permissible actions the government could take -- refusing broadcast, changing certification or suspending it – but edits did not fall within any of these categories.

The Additional Solicitor General defended the process, noting that the film had already gone through two levels of scrutiny, the CBFC’s 55 cuts and a subsequent five-member committee’s recommendations for six additional changes and a stronger disclaimer.

But the court reminded the ASG that the key question remained unanswered, whether the Centre, in acting as it did, had effectively stepped into the role of an appellate authority, a power previously invalidated by the Karnataka High Court. The Bench noted that the current law did not support the Centre taking such action under revisional powers. The matter will be heard next on Friday.