'Udaipur Files' Film Case: Supreme Court Awaits Centre's Decision On Revision, Says Balance Of Convenience Favours Objectors

The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the petitions relating to the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", taking note of the fact that the Union Government is set to hear today at 2.30 PM the revision petitions against the CBFC certification of the film.

The Court said that it expected the Centre's committee to take its decision "immediately, without loss of time" and posted the matters to next Monday, considering the urgency expressed by the makers of the film.

Since the producer and director of the film as well as the son of slain Kanhaiya Lal expressed that they were receiving death threats, the Court allowed them to make a representation to the SP/Comissioner of Police of the area, who were directed to assess the threat perception and do the needful to prevent harm if there is substance in their apprehension.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with two petitions - first, a writ petition filed by one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal Teli murder case (on which the movie is based), and second, filed by the makers of the movie against Delhi High Court's stay over its release.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for accused-Mohammad Javed, submitted that the petitioner was challenging the release of the film on the ground that it would affect his right to fair trial. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani (the petitioner in the Delhi High Court who has been allowed to file revision before the Centre) informed the bench that the Union Government will hear the matter at 2.30 PM today.

The bench at this juncture expressed the view that it would prefer to await the Centre's decision. However, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, for movie producer-Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd., urged the Court to hear the matter today itself, contending that the High Court's order was erroneous. Once the film was certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), there is a presumption of legality in its favour, Bhatia submitted, arguing that the High Court erred in stalling the film's release on the eleventh hour and allowing the petitioners to seek revision before the Centre.

The bench however observed that Section 6 of the Cinematography Act 1952 conferred the Union Government with the power to de-certify a movie and that the High Court only allowed the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy. In response, Bhatia contended that the High Court passed the order without ascertaining the credentials of the petitioners and that the stay order violated the makers' right to freedom of speech and expression as well as their right to carry out business.

Balance of convenience with parties' opposing the movie, says the bench

Justice Surya Kant further opined that the balance of convenience lay with the parties who opposed the movie's release, as if the film is released, their petitions will become infructuous; any loss suffered by the producer due to the delay could be compensated monetarily, the judge added.

"Balance of convienience is in their favor...if movie is released, it can lead to irreparable loss...but if there is delay, you can be compensated," Justice Kant said. Justice Kant also said in a lighter vein that if there is a controversy, the movie is likely to perform well.

Guruswamy submitted that the movie was initially titled "Gyanvapi Files", and was dealing with two sub-judice issues- the Gyanvapi case as well as the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. "The movie portrays the judiciary as well in a certain way. The movie is bordering on hate, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. There is much at stake. They can't claim free speech to violate fair trial or lower judiciary's reputation," she submitted. She also requested the bench to allow Javed (who was not a petitioner before the Delhi HC) to attend the hearing before the Centre. The bench allowed this request.

Justice Kant however expressed disagreement that a film can sway the mind of judges. "Our judicial officers are not school-going children that they can be swayed by movie dialogues...absolutely confident about their objectivity...sense of detachment," Justice Kant said.

'This movie generates violence' : Sibal

Sibal submitted that he had seen the film in a special private screening, after the 55 cuts ordered by the CBFC, and even that version was highly problematic. Such a film which generates hate against one community should not be allowed to be seen by millions in a democratic country, he urged.

"When HC asked us, I personally saw the movie. I was shaken in every sense of the word. If any judge were to see it, they will be shocked. Its complete theme is of hate against the community..It is something that generates violence. It's vilification of a community. Not one positive aspect about the community shown...homosexuality, judicial matters, treatment of women...a democratic nation certifying such movie...unimaginable...I don't think in any nation, such agenda based movie should be allowed."

Bhatia countered, saying that the film was based on the real-life beheading of a person and asserted that the film was not against any community and was only spreading a message against extremism. He also submitted that the producer, director and the son of Kanhaiya Lal were receiving death threats.

Background

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 (CBFC). The order was passed in a batch of pleas, including a plea filed by Islamic cleric's body, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, which contended that it was communally divisive.

On July 14, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, on behalf of the producer of the movie (Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd), mentioned before the Supreme Court the plea challenging Delhi High Court's stay order and sought its urgent listing. A day later, accused-Mohammad Javed's petition was mentioned by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who prayed that it may be listed alongwith the movie makers'.

Case Title: MOHAMMED JAVED Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 647/2025 and JANI FIREFOX MEDIA PVT. LTD v. MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI AND ORS, SLP(C) No. 18316/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order