Udaipur Files: Accused seeks Gag on Film until Verdict, Cites threat to fair trial
Accused, Mohammed Javed in Udaipur murder case urged the High Court to temporarily defer Udaipur Files release, citing fair trial concerns;
In a plea before the Delhi High Court, accused Mohammed Javed, facing trial in the 2022 Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal’s murder case, sought a temporary halt on the release of Udaipur Files, arguing that the film, based on the chargesheet, would irreparably prejudice the ongoing criminal trial.
“All we’re seeking is a temporary postponement of the film’s release, non-publication until the trial concludes and judgment is delivered,” Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted on Javed’s behalf.
The Court was hearing petitions challenging the Central Government’s clearance for the release of the film Udaipur Files, which is based on the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took up the petition filed by Mohammed Javed, one of the undertrials in the case, and heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared on his behalf.
Guruswamy submitted that the release of the film would severely prejudice her client’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. “I am Accused no.8 in the trial. I was 19 years old when arrested. 106 witnesses remain to be examined. The Rajasthan High Court granted me bail noting there was no connection between me and the crime,” she stated.
She informed the Court that the film’s producers had explicitly claimed it is based on the prosecution’s chargesheet and that dialogues had been lifted verbatim. “This film is not a fictionalised account, it is a cinematic reproduction of the chargesheet,” Guruswamy argued.
She also questioned the Centre’s exercise of its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, terming it a breach of statutory limits and violative of the constitutional scheme.
“The makers and promoters of this film are in contempt of court. The criminal justice system is about arriving at the truth, which requires fairness and an absence of prejudice. What this film does is sabotage that very process,” Guruswamy contended.
Responding to the Court’s query on what constitutes contempt in this context, Guruswamy argued that any attempt to influence a pending criminal trial through a public medium amounted to interference with the administration of justice. “Unlike the US, our speech rights are subject to Article 19(2). Free speech is not unfettered here,” she said.
She cited multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sahara India and Amish Devgan v. Union of India, the Madras High Court judgment on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination film, and a Kerala High Court decision involving a true-crime television series. “There is already a precedent for courts recognising that premature publicity of pending trials risks derailing the justice process,” the Senior Counsel submitted.
Justice Rao, however, pressed for specifics: “How is this case different? There are many murder trials with over 100 witnesses. What makes this one special?”
To this, Guruswamy responded, “This case captured national attention. When a film like this releases, are we expecting every citizen, witness, and judge to be unreasonably prudent? The law doesn’t demand that.” She added that only six witnesses had been examined so far, including a star witness who is the son of the deceased.
While concluding, she argued that Udaipur Files contains direct hate speech, quoting from the Amish Devgan ruling to underscore the threat posed by such narratives.
The hearing is ongoing.
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.
Notably, on June 25, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain the petitions seeking a stay on the film's release and directed all parties to approach the Delhi High Court. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia in a sharp defence of the movie before the Court had, urged the Bench to reject petitions seeking a stay on its release. “Every time truth is shown, someone acts like a censor,” Bhatia had submitted, calling the attempt to block the release a case of “hypersensitivity syndrome.”
SGl Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government had strongly defended the film’s release, stating it was “crime-focused, not community-targeted” and had undergone substantial modifications in line with certification norms. He had informed the Bench that orders had already been passed in the revision petition. "A step more would be infringing upon that process, is my personal opinion" he cautioned. On July 16, the Apex Court had deferred hearing on pleas, it decided to wait for the outcome of ongoing proceedings before the Central Government on a revision petition under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.
Interestingly, on July 15, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear on July 16, a petition filed by an accused Mohammad Javed, in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case seeking stay on release of movie “The Udaipur Files: Kanhaiyalal Tailor Murder”, and on July 14, the Supreme Court had agreed to list a plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim stay order.
Earlier, on July 9, the High Court had directed the producer of Udaipur Files, Amit Jani, to arrange a private screening of the movie and its trailer for all counsel of both parties, after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had informed the court that it had mandated 40 to 50 cuts before granting certification. The High Court had also clarified that the manner in which the case against release had been reported in media was not what truly happened in the hearing before the Supreme Court, with portals reporting that the court had asked for it to be released.
Stay on the release of the film Udaipur Files had received strong criticism from Kanhaiya Lal’s son, Yash Sahu.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed v. UOI and Maulana Arshad Madani v. UOI & Ors.
Hearing Date: July 30, 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela