Udaipur Files Movie : Supreme Court To Decide Tomorrow On Extending Stay Of Release

In the matter pertaining to the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 24) expressed that it would ask the parties objecting to the film to approach the Delhi High Court challenging the Centre's order which approved the movie's release with 6 edits.

On whether the release of the film should be stayed till the parties approach the High Court, the Court will take a call tomorrow. 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 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.

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.

Today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, 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), took objection to the composition of the expert panel constituted by the Central Government, which suggested further edits to the movie. Sibal said that CBFC members, who had initially certified the film and some members of the BJP were members of the expert panel.

"Free speech cannot be hate speech," he stressed, referring to the judgment in Amish Devgan case. "Everything in this movie spews venom about a community. There is nothing else in the movie," Sibal said. The senior counsel further informed the bench that Jamiat has filed a new writ petition challenging the Centre's revisional order.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, told the bench that the CBFC certified the film after 55 cuts and the Central Government, in revision, ordered 6 further edits. Reading from the expert panel's report, the SG added that the movie is crime-focused, not community-targeting.

When Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for accused-Mohammad Javed, raised concerns about the impact on fair trial, Justice Kant said, "Don't underestimate our judiciary. They won't get swayed by a movie. They are judicially trained. Judicial officer is duty-bound to decide strictly on the basis of evidence." 

Guruswamy pointed out that the Supreme Court had withheld the release of a movie based on the 1992 Bombay blasts till the trial was over. She also argued that the Central Government, while exercising revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, does not have the power to order further edits and can only cancel the certificate. However, the bench did not agree with this submission.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, for movie producer-Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd., submitted that the release of the film should be allowed now that the Central Government has passed its order in revision. Petitioner-Mohammed Javed is not even mentioned in the film, Bhatia submitted, to contend that the apprehensions raised by Guruswamy were misplaced. He referred to the judgments in Adarsh Housing Society (which refused plea against 'Aiyaary' documentary) and Viacom Media (which lifted the ban on Padmaavat movie) to argue that the Courts have always supported artistic expression. The decision taken by the statutory authority must be respected, Bhatia urged, pleading that the film's release, stalled for ten days, be cleared.

When the Court suggested that the parties can approach the Delhi High Court challenging the Centre's order, Sibal and Guruswamy prayed that the release should be stayed till then, as the matter would otherwise become infructuous. 

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.

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