Centre to take fresh call on ‘Udaipur Files' certification
The submission was made by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma before a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after court questioned the government for exceeding its powers under Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 by suggesting cuts instead of un-certifying or suspending the film's exhibition.
'We (Centre) will withdraw and revisit the order (July 21 of clearing the movie's release by recommending further cuts) and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. I'm (Centre) withdrawing due to the form of the order. It's not in compliance with section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952,' the law officer representing the Centre and Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) submitted.
In view of the law officer's statement, the court disposed of the petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Maulana Mahmood Arshad Madani, and Mohammad Javed, accused in the murder case, challenging the July 21 order but directed the government to take a fresh call by Wednesday. On July 21, had cleared the movie's release, subject to the filmmaker carrying out six additional edits, in addition to the 55 cuts already implemented.
The direction to take a call by Wednesday was issued after the producer Amit Jani's counsel Gaurav Bhatia said that they planned to release the film on August 8 and needed adequate time for the same.
'After arguments on behalf of the parties were heard, ASG Chetan Sharma on instructions has stated that the government will withdraw the order dated July 21, and take a decision on the revision petition by the parties afresh. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in terms of ASG's statement,' the court said in its order.
It added, 'It has been urged by the producer that the next date for the film's release has been declared as August 8 and they shall take time for making arrangements for release of the movie by engaging theatres. After hearing the parties, an appropriate decision shall be taken by revisional authority on the revision petitions by Wednesday.'
The petitions were listed before the high court, after the Supreme Court, while refusing to take a call on allowing the movie's release, had requested the high court to take up the matter on Monday. On July 10, the Delhi high court had temporarily halted the movie's release, which was scheduled to be exhibited in theatres on July 11.
Javed in his petition, argued by senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy along with advocate Saumya Dwivedi, had asserted that the Centre, by suggesting cuts, acted beyond the statutory powers granted to it under section 6. Guruswamy had asserted that the same was egregious since the procedure followed by the government to pass the same was based on a repealed law. She pointed out that the Centre's order was based on the recommendations of a five member committee comprising three advisory members from the CBFC, but the inclusion of members of the CBFC was no longer permitted under the act.
On the contrary, the law officer had earlier justified Centre's decision saying that the same as per the scheme of the act and was taken by a committee consisting of experts including senior government officers and 3 members of the CBFC, who were not involved in prior certification.
Lal was murdered in June 2022 with a cleaver in Udaipur district, Rajasthan, for allegedly sharing a social media post endorsing the disparaging remarks made against Prophet Muhammad by former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma. She made the comments while participating in a television debate in May 2022. The assailants, who were arrested by the Rajasthan police, even prepared a video claiming responsibility for the murder. They even displayed the weapon of offence used for the crime.
Considering the sensitivity of the case, the matter was probed by the National Investigation Agency and the accused was charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The trial in the case is pending before a special NIA court in Jaipur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Hindu outfit seeks ban on Marathi film 'Khalid Ka Shivaji', writes to CBFC
Mumbai: A local Hindu outfit has written to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking a ban on the Marathi film 'Khalid Ka Shivaji', slated for release on August 8, claiming that it has attempted to distort the history of Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Hindu Mahasangh, a Pune-based organisation, has submitted its objections to the CBFC and the film's producers. "The film attempts to distort the history of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The producers have portrayed him as secular, which is not acceptable. If the film is not banned, we will protest at the theatres where it is screened," Hindu Mahasangh chairman Anand Dave said in a statement. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai "We urge all theatres in Pune not to screen this film. If it is shown in rural areas, we will visit cinema halls and hold lectures on the true history of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj," he said. Dave further claimed that the film tries to change the historical narrative. "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj belonged to us, to Hindus, and Marathas. Our objection is to the very idea of Khalid Ka Shivaji," he stated. Directed by Raj More, 'Khalid Ka Shivaji' is a film about a Muslim boy who learns about Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj through life experiences. PTI
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Suresh Gopi-Anupama Parameswaran's ‘Janaki V Vs State of Kerala' gets OTT release date. Here's when and where to watch the film:
The makers of Janaki V Vs State of Kerala, the controversial Malayalam film starring Suresh Gopi and Anupama Parameswaran, have announced the film's OTT release. The Pravin Narayanan-directed courtroom drama will premiere on ZEE5 on Independence Day, August 15. ZEE5 unveiled a new trailer of the film to announce the news. 'Janaki, a woman silenced by society, rises with unshakable courage to take on the state itself. As the courtroom turns into a battlefield, her truth begins to shake the foundation of law and order,' reads the logline by the streamer. Anupama plays Janaki Vidhyadharan, a sexual assault survivor, while Suresh plays her counsel, David Abel Donovan. Janaki V Vs State of Kerala, which was released in theatres on July 17, made headlines for several weeks ahead of its release. The film courted controversy after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demanded that the makers change the title as well as the name of the titular character of Janaki, apparently because the name also refers to the Hindu goddess Sita. Later, the revising committee of the CBFC also rejected certification for the film. The decision led to a political uproar in Kerala, with many film bodies organising protests against the censor board. Stating that films bearing similar names had been released earlier, the Kerala High Court sought an explanation from the CBFC and asked whether the changes suggested were a challenge to the freedom of creative expression. The CBFC later cleared the release of the re-edited version of film, which was re-titled as Janaki V. v/s State of Kerala. Also starring Divya Pillai, Sruthi Ramachandran, Askar Ali, Madhav Suresh Gopi, and Baiju Sandosh, the film has music scored by Gireesh Narayanan and background score by Ghibran. Renadive is the cinematographer, while Samjith Mohammed is the editor. J Phanindra Kumar produces the film under the Cosmos Entertainments banner. The Hindu's review of the film read, 'For a courtroom drama, there is hardly any scene that makes an impact. As if to excite the audience lulled by the sluggish drama, there is an unnecessary jump scare sequence, which seems inspired from a B-grade horror movie. Songs further drag down the narrative. With its insensitive take on an important issue, Janaki V Vs State of Kerala becomes a film as pointless as the letter 'V', which was added to Janaki's name to satisfy the whims of the censors.'
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Take Operation Sindoor like action to safeguard dignity of women in digital space, Madras High Court tells Centre
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) must exhibit same interest, as it did in blocking over 1,400 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) during Operation Sindoor, when it comes to blocking websites that display private images/videos of women, the Madras High Court said on Tuesday (August 5, 2025). Justice N. Anand Venkatesh agreed with senior counsel Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, representing a woman lawyer whose private images/videos were all over the internet/digital media, that the dignity of every woman in the country must be considered as important as the dignity of the whole nation put together. The woman advocate had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a direction to MeitY to block the porn websites and other digital platforms on which her private videos as well as images had been displayed after they were leaked by her former boyfriend in the social media. Mr. Rajaratnam said, though the court, during the previous hearing, had ordered blocking of as many as six video links; the number of links in which his client's images/videos were displayed had now increased to 13 and some of the websites had resurfaced even after blocking. On his part, central government senior panel counsel A. Kumaraguru told the court that MeitY had taken serious note of the orders passed by the court on the issue and decided to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for redressing grievances of women facing trouble in the digital space. He said, it had been proposed to constitute an expert committee for formulating the SOP and that the terms of reference of the committee had also been laid down. He said, MeitY had blocked all the 13 video links which the senior counsel had shared with him and that they could not be accessed from Delhi and Mumbai. However, those links were accessible in Tamil Nadu alone and it appeared to be a coordination issue with the local service providers, the panel counsel said and assured the court that the expert committee would study these technical issues too before formulating the SOP and submitting it before the court. On his part, Mr. Rajaratnam brought it to the notice of the court that during Operation Sindoor, the Centre had observed that certain social media handles, including many operating from outside India, were actively propagating false and potentially harmful information. Hence, the government had issued orders, under the Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000, for blocking all websites, social media handles and posts that were found to be against the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the State as well as maintenance of public order. Then, MeitY issued directions for blocking over 1,400 URLs whose content was found to be anti-India, false, misleading and communally sensitive. Most of those digital content had emerged from Pakistan based social media accounts and yet, the Centre successfully blocked them, Mr. Rajaratnam said. He said, it was expected of the Centre to exhibit the same intensity of seriousness when a woman approaches the Ministry with a complaint that her private videos/images were being circulated in the internet and ensure the offending websites do not resurface even after blocking.
