"Cuts ordered without Power": Delhi HC Questions Centre’s Authority in Udaipur Files Clearance

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing two petitions challenging the Centre’s clearance of the film, one filed by Mohammed Javed, an accused in a related case, and another by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the Jamiat.

Appearing for the Union and CBFC, ASG Chetan Sharma defended the Centre’s actions by invoking Sections 5B and 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, arguing that the film already carried an 'A' certificate and the revision petition was infructuous as no formal order had been issued under Section 6(2).

However, the Bench remained unconvinced.

"You've issued directions beyond what the Certification Board had done. That’s not permissible," CJ Upadhyay remarked, noting that the Karnataka High Court had rightly flagged the issue earlier. "If this was a statutory revision under Section 6, where is the adjudication? Where is the notification? You weren’t exercising general powers," the Bench said.

Justice Gedela pointed out that Rule 25(1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules was linked to applications under Section 4(2), relevant only to the CBFC, and not Section 6. “What you’ve done isn’t a decision; it’s an advisory at best. And that’s fine. But don’t call it something it’s not,” he said.

The ASG contended that the Centre had acted with fairness, not exceeding its powers, and that the final decision lay with the CBFC and the producer. However, the Court pressed on, “Where do you derive the power to suggest or enforce cuts? That recommendation, followed by action, effectively defeated the right of revision."

The Court clarified that it wasn’t examining the merits of the film’s content or the Board’s expert opinion. “We’re fully aware that the CBFC process is strict and expert-led. Our scope is limited. But jurisdiction of statutory authorities is squarely within our domain under Article 226,” the Chief Justice said.

When the ASG submitted that the petitioners had been given “everything under the sun”, from 55 cuts to 6 cuts, CJ Upadhyay said, “But what about the petitioners' grievance? What happened to their revision petition?”

The hearing will resume at 2:30pm

It is to be noted that, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producers of the film had informed the Court on July 28, that the film had undergone six cuts and included a disclaimer, as directed by the Central government, but the updated certificate from the CBFC is still awaited. CJ Upadhyay had noted that the film cannot be exhibited without re-certification and remarked that there was no urgency to the matter.