ASG Chetan Sharma defends Udaipur Files Clearance in Delhi HC

The ASG submitted that the film underwent a thorough two-stage review process. Initially, the CBFC suggested 55 cuts targeting “purported generic overtones.” Following this, an expert advisory panel, comprising three individuals unconnected to the film, recommended an additional six cuts and a fortified disclaimer.

“This film has now been certified. The updated certificate, however, has not yet been issued as we are currently before Your Lordships,” ASG Sharma told the Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

Sharma also clarified that petitioner Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, is not named or depicted in the film. “Both sides were called to view the film. The process was transparent, and the advisory panel included independent experts,” he said.

Emphasising the freedom of expression within legal bounds, Sharma argued that controversial films must necessarily address the controversy they depict. “If the subject is contentious, its portrayal becomes essential,” he added, citing judicial precedent.

However, the Bench questioned on whether the Centre’s revisional action, including the direction to impose six further cuts, was legally sustainable. “You still haven’t answered our core question,” the Chief Justice remarked.

“While exercising revisional powers, the Centre acted like an appellate authority, which is impermissible under the Karnataka High Court’s judgment," the Chief Justice said.

The Court underlined that its earlier order only permitted the Centre to decide the revision petition under Section 6 of the Act and not to issue directives curtailing the producer’s rights. “Once an order is passed, either side can feel aggrieved. But you must act strictly within the four corners of the statute,” the Bench cautioned.

To this, ASG Sharma contended that the Centre had not exceeded its jurisdiction. “The choice was between transgressing or staying within jurisdiction, and I remained firmly within,” he said, adding that the Supreme Court’s earlier directions had simply remitted the matter for reconsideration under Section 6.

The Bench, however, said, “Our earlier judgment never asked you to pass an order on the representation. You were merely to assess the revision petition under the Act. Any action beyond that breaches statutory limits.”

The Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on Friday, August 1, when ASG Sharma will continue making his submissions.

Notably, the accused Mohammed Javed, who is facing trial in the 2022 Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal’s murder case has 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.

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.

Case Title: Mohammed Javed v. UOI