Udaipur Files Release: Supreme Court Urges Parties to Await Centre’s Decision on Film Certification

The Court decided to wait for the outcome of ongoing proceedings before the Central Government on a revision petition under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing two connected petitions; one challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim stay on the film’s release and the other filed by Mohammed Javed, an accused in the Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal’s murder, seeking to halt the screening of the movie citing prejudice to his ongoing trial.

At the outset, Justice Kant inquired about the status of the statutory revision petition filed under Section 6 of the Act.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, informed the Court that a hearing before the competent authority was scheduled for 2:30 PM today.

The Bench observed that, since the Centre was actively seized of the matter, it would be appropriate to await its decision rather than intervene prematurely.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producer of Udaipur Files, pressed for immediate relief. “I’m challenging the Delhi HC’s order. I have a valid CBFC certificate. There’s irreparable loss to me. Theatres were booked. The order came at 8 PM, just 12 hours before release,” he submitted, adding that over six days had already been lost and piracy concerns had now arisen.

Justice Kant, however, remarked that while such matters should be prioritised, it would be “partly unreasonable” to expect a decision by tomorrow. “Common sense suggests the authority may want to watch the film before deciding,” he said, adding that the Court had confidence that the competent authority would not delay.

Bhatia also informed the Court that he had complied with all 55 cuts mandated by the CBFC and alleged that the petitioners had approached the High Court at the last minute without disclosing credentials.

On the contrary, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for murder accused Mohammed Javed, flagged the risk to his client’s right to a fair trial. “This film concerns two sub judice matters, the Udaipur murder trial and a Gyanvapi-linked case. The judiciary is depicted in it. There’s speech bordering on hate,” she said, arguing that such content could derail judicial proceedings.

Justice Kant acknowledged the tension between free speech and fair trial rights. “If there’s a conflict between Article 19 and Article 21, Article 21 will prevail,” he observed, while also noting that “our judges are not school children” and are fully capable of maintaining objectivity.

Bhatia also apprised the Court of threats received by the film’s producer, director, and the victim’s son. “There’s an FIR, and two people have been arrested. They are being threatened not to release the film. Protection is needed,” he said.

Justice Kant assured that “everyone will get a fair opportunity to be heard” and permitted all parties to present their case before the Centre. He also noted that the Delhi High Court had not given any opinion on the film’s content and had merely directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 6, which empowers the Union Government to revoke certification or impose interim measures like suspension of exhibition.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who had viewed the film himself, said, “I was shaken to the core. It’s an unapologetic vilification of an entire community. There’s not a single redeeming portrayal. This is an agenda film. No democracy should allow this.”

Responding to the criticism, Bhatia stated that the film did not show sensitive material, including the viral video of the beheading. “The message is to hold radical elements accountable and highlight the suffering of families,” he said.

Conclusively, the Court asked the parties to appear before the Central Government at the scheduled hearing and directed that the petitions remain pending.

Bhatia requested that the matter be listed again the day after tomorrow in case the authority fails to decide.

The matter will now be taken up for hearing on July 18, after the Central Government concludes its hearing on the Section 6 revision petition.