Udaipur Files Release: Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Plea by Accused Mohd. Javed
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a writ petition filed by Mohd. Javed, an accused in the 2022 Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, challenging the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s clearance of the film Udaipur Files.
The film is slated for release on Friday, August 8. Interestingly, the Central government on August 6, had cleared Udaipur Files for August 8 release after re-examination. According to reports, the Ministry of I&B reviewed the film as per the Court’s instructions and subsequently dismissed the objections that had earlier stalled its release.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard extensive arguments from both sides, with Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma representing the Union of India and the CBFC, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for the petitioner Javed, and Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia representing the film’s producer.
Guruswamy argued that the film’s content mirrors the chargesheet and directly portrays her client’s alleged role in the crime. “My role is shown in the film exactly as it is in the chargesheet, holding a phone and informing the other accused of the victim’s whereabouts,” she submitted. Guruswamy emphasized that the right to a fair trial, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, would be irreparably prejudiced by the film’s public release.
“There’s no precedent of a film being allowed during the pendency of a trial unless the accused themselves are involved in the project,” Guruswamy submitted, urging the Court to watch the film before deciding.
“A trial plays out in a courtroom and in society. The film names the victim, outlines the crime, and implies my client's involvement," the Senior Counsel for the accused argued.
ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the CBFC and the Union of India, defended the film’s certification and the Ministry’s review process. “The authorities applied their mind at the highest level. Every party was heard. We have followed your Lordships’ directions meticulously,” Sharma told the Court. He clarified that the only procedural fault earlier was the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, which has since been addressed.
Senior Advocate Bhatia, for the film’s producers, argued that no case for interim relief is made out. “The accused isn’t named. His role isn’t depicted specifically. There’s no direct nexus between the content and the petitioner,” Bhatia contended.
He informed the Court that Udaipur Files has undergone 55 cuts and 6 additional modifications along with a disclaimer as recommended by an expert committee. The film also carries a prominent disclaimer: “Inspired by certain real-life events. While based on true incidents, it is not a literal account of actual persons or occurrences.”
Bhatia submitted that postponing the release would cause irreparable harm to the producers, who have invested their lifetime savings and face a six-month unavailability of theatres.
After hearing all parties, CJ Upadhyaya indicated that the Bench may either dictate the order in open court or in chambers and assured that it will be uploaded on the High Court website today itself.
On August 1, the Delhi High Court had recorded the Central Government’s submission that it would withdraw its July 21 order clearing the release of the film Udaipur Files and issue a fresh decision on the revision petitions after hearing all concerned parties. Bhatia had strongly opposed any delay in the film’s release, informing the Bench that Udaipur Files was initially scheduled to hit theatres on July 11. “I’ve already lost 20 days. The next available date is August 8 or earlier, depending on theatre availability,” he had submitted. The Court had said it would ensure that the revision petition is decided before that date.
In the pre- lunch session, the Court had grilled the Central Government over its exercise of revisional authority in the clearance of the film Udaipur Files, asking whether the Centre acted within the bounds of Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 while recommending further cuts after the film had already received certification.
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.
Case Title: Mohammed Javed v. Union of India
Hearing Date: August 7, 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela