Centre Orders More Changes To "Udaipur Files" Movie; Supreme Court Extends Stay On Release Till July 24

The Central Government on Monday told the Supreme Court that it has passed an order in the applications seeking the revision of the certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder".

As per the Centre's order, six changes have been made to the contents of the film. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting accepted the report of an expert committee which suggested the changes.

The changes include a more detailed disclaimer clarifying that the film was an artistic work and that it did not endorse violence or defamation of any community, changes to the credit cards, revision of an AI-generated scene depicting a Saudi-Arabia style turban, replacement of the name "Nutan Sharma" with a new name,  removal of a dialogue of Nutan Sharma that she stated whatever was written in the religious texts, and removal of an exchange between characters Hafiz and Maqbool.

Taking note of the Centre's order, the Supreme Court adjourned the petitions relating to the movie till Thursday. The parties have been given liberty to file their objections to the Centre's order. Till the next date of hearing, the release of the movie will remain stayed.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta told the Court that to order any further changes would be violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

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 Kapil Sibal,  appeared for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani (the petitioner in the Delhi High Court who was allowed to file revision before the Centre).

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appeared for accused-Mohammad Javed.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearred for movie producer-Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd. During the hearing, Bhatia told the bench that he had read in LiveLaw about an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the movie's release. He objected to the High Court passing an order when the Supreme Court is already seized of the matter. Sibal said that the MP High Court only said that the Delhi High Court's order will apply.

Justice Kant observed that the decision which the Supreme Court would take on the next hearing date will ultimately prevail.

It may be recalled that on the last date (July 16), hearing of the cases was adjourned, taking into account the fact that the Union Government was set to hear at 2:30 PM that day the revision petitions against CBFC certification of the film. Re-listing the matter, the Court said that it expected the Centre's committee to take its decision "immediately, without loss of time", considering the urgency expressed by the makers of the film.

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'.

On July 16, the Court adjourned the hearing in the matter to await the Centre's decision on the revision petitions challenging certification of the film. Further, 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.

Case Title:

(1) MOHAMMED JAVED Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 647/2025

(2) JANI FIREFOX MEDIA PVT. LTD v. MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI AND ORS, SLP(C) No. 18316/2025