'Udaipur Files' Row : Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Decide On Monday Pleas To Stay Movie's Release

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 25) asked the parties objecting to the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre's revisional order which approved the movie's exhibition with 6 edits.

The Court requested the High Court to take up the matter on coming Monday (July 28) itself for a preliminary hearing.

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed (one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case) are the parties objecting to the film's release.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi at the outset indicated its inclination to relegate the matters to the Delhi High Court. The next question was whether the release of the film should be stayed till the High Court takes up the matter.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Jamiat President, said that if the film's release is allowed, then the matter would become infructuous. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, for the film producer Jani Firefox Media Pvt Ltd, opposed the Court extending the stay and submitted that the release cannot be further stalled after the Centre's revisional order. He pointed out that the Courts have consistently taken a stand against stalling of film exhibitions, such as in the cases related to Kashmir Files, The Kerala Story, etc.

Advocate Dr Syed Rizwan, also appearing for the movie producer, said that the social fabric of the country is very strong and was not affected by movies like Kashmir Files.

"Did any incident happen after Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Were Kashmiri Muslims targeted? Mr Madani should understand the law. Social fabric of country was not harmed after 26/11, after actual incident of Udaipur, after Kashmir Files, after Kerala Story. Their vilification theory is a figment of imagination. Making mountain out of a mole. They want us to believe it's more profound than Pahalgam, Phulwama..." he submitted.

When Justice Kant expressed difficulty about Supreme Court imposing any further order when it was relegating the matters to the High Court, Sibal requested that the High Court be asked to take up the matter on priority. On this, the judge said that the High Court can be requested to hear on Monday. 

Sibal further submitted that the movie producer cannot in any way get the revised version certified by the CBFC in the next two days and release it before Monday. "If they can get it released before Monday, then let them. No interim order then. If they can't, the Court will hear on interim relief," he said.

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, for Javed, informed the Court that they have already filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the Centre's revisional order.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court clarified in its order that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter and all contentions are open to be raised before the High Court, which shall decide in accordance with law.

The Court was dealing with three petitions - (i) a writ petition filed by Javed, (ii) a Special Leave Petition filed by the makers of the movie against Delhi High Court's stay over its release, and (iii) a petition filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal against the Delhi High Court stay order.

Yesterday, senior counsels for Madani and Javed took the Court through objections filed against the Centre's order - which again emphasized that the movie vilifies an entire community and is based on a real life incident in connection to which a trial is ongoing. The objectors further raised contentions on the composition of the expert panel which passed the revision order and highlighted that a substantive writ petition has also been filed before the Supreme Court against the Centre's order. The movie producer, on the other hand, stressed that the movie ought to be released at this point. Ultimately, the bench expressed inclination to relegate the parties to the Delhi High Court. The only question remained if the release was to be stayed till such time, for which it decided to hear the parties today.

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. The order was passed in a batch of pleas, including a plea filed by the 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/Commissioner 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.

On July 21, the Court was informed by the Centre that it had passed an order on the petitions seeking revision of CBFC certification granted to the movie. As per the Centre's order, 6 changes to the contents of the film were suggested by an expert committee and the same were accepted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The changes included - 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.

In this backdrop, the Court gave time to the parties to file their objections to the Centre's order. 

Appearance: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Jamiat President Maulana Arshad Madani); Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy (for accused-Mohammed Javed); Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia with AoR Pulkit Agarwal (for producer-Jani Firefox)

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

(3) SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL Versus MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI AND ORS., Diary No. 38697-2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order