'Muslim Community Demonised' : Jamiat Files Petition In Supreme Court Against Centre Approving 'Udaipur Files' Movie With 6 Cuts

Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging Centre's order clearing release of the movie 'Udaipur Files' subject to 6 changes.

Madani has also filed objections to Centre's order in the batch of pleas arising out of Delhi High Court's order, which stayed release of the film till Centre's order on the objectors' revision petitions.

In his objections, Madani claims that the movie producer-Amit Jani is a self-styled activist and founder of the Uttar Pradesh Navnirman Sena who has historically indulged in communally colored propaganda.

Citing newspaper reports, Madani accuses Jani of involvement in the following incidents – (i) vandalization of UP CM Mayawati's statute in 2012 (ii) vandalization of a Shiv Sena office, threatening of political figures (like Ajit Singh), issuance of communal threats against Kashmiris, sharing of inflammatory imagery involving heritage sites like Taj Mahal (iii) planting a letter threatening to behead JNU students Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid in a bus.

“The case is not therefore related to a genuine producer of artistic expression but is with regard to a targeted political propaganda being peddled by persons masquerading as filmmakers", the objections state.

Further, Madani draws attention to Amish Devgan's case to distinguish between protected speech under Article 19 of the Constitution and hate speech.

“While the film purports to be telling the story of the unfortunate and condemnable murder of Late Kanhaiya Lal in 2022, when viewed in its entirety, the film is nothing short of hate speech. It relies heavily on tropes and conspiratorial assertions against an entire community while deviating substantially from the factual narrative of the said incident.”

He asserts that the film, in its theme, imagery, dialogues, references, and storyline, is a “wholesome vilification and demonisation of the Muslim community, which is portrayed throughout the film as embodying the worst traits of humankind.”

It is also stated that every Muslim character in the movie has been shown as deceitful, scheming, violent, responsible for causing riots and acting against the nation at the behest of an enemy state.

“Any reasonable viewer would conclude that this thematic portrayal is ex facie designed to evoke feelings of hatred towards the Muslim community, and to stoke communal unrest, by intentionally bombarding viewers with incendiary imagery that not only denigrates and defames the Muslim community, but portrays all Muslims as inherently dangerous and bloodthirsty."

Contending that movie portrayed all Muslims as persons acting at the behest of handlers in an enemy state, Madani says,

“These narratives and portrayals, it is submitted, do not simply refer to an India-Pakistan issue but rather seek to show Indian Muslims as being either sympathetic towards, or acting at behest of, terrorists in Pakistan. The insinuation is not only mala fide but is aimed at promoting such views so as to cause communal disharmony in India.”

On the contention that hate speech is not protected under Article 19, he adds,

“The major portion of the film is unrelated to the murder of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, and is rather a carefully narrated hate speech against the Muslim Community exhorting every non-Muslim in the country to have a feeling of distrust and suspicion against the Muslims around them.”

Madani also objects to the constitution of a committee by the Union to decide on the revision petitions against CBFC certification of the movie. It is alleged that some members were affiliated to the BJP.

“the Central Government could not have delegated the task for consideration by a committee consisting majorly the members of CBFC, certification granted by which was being challenged.”

Further, as per Madani, Section 6 of Cinematograph Act has no mandate that a film can be approved subject to changes. “Even the six purported changes are largely inconsequential and artificial”, he claims.

At last, a private screening of the movie for viewing by the Supreme Court bench is requested. The pleas arising out of the Delhi High Court order are listed today before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.