Director Bharat Shrinate After HC Stays Udaipur Files Release: "Was Not Expecting This..."
Director of Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, Bharat S Shrinate on Friday said that he was shocked by the High Court's order to halt the release of the film, which was scheduled to hit theatres today.
Shrinate told ANI that he was not "expecting" the Delhi High Court to order a stay on the release of the film.
"I was not expecting such a decision because just a day before the petition (in Delhi HC), the petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court and it was denied. So, in the High Court, I don't know how it happened," said Shrinate.
The director further stated that they will move the Supreme Court to request the removal of a stay order for the film.
"We are not questioning any judicial. So we are going to the Supreme Court," added Bharat.
The Delhi High Court had yesterday ordered a stay on the release of the film.
The stay will remain in effect until the Central Government decides on the revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal passed the interim order while hearing two petitions, one by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and another by journalist Prashant Tandon, challenging the CBFC's decision to grant certification to the film.
The petitioners argued that the film's release could disturb communal harmony and pose a serious threat to public order, given the sensitive nature of the subject.
The Court observed that since the petitioners had been relegated to invoke the revisional remedy under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the release of the film must remain stayed until a decision is made on their application for interim relief.
"We provide that till the grant of interim relief is decided, there shall be a stay on the release of the film," the bench stated.
Udaipur Files is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was brutally killed in broad daylight by two men allegedly angered by a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
The incident had triggered national outrage and raised serious concerns about radicalisation and communal violence.
The petitioners contended that the film sensationalises the incident and may further inflame tensions. They also raised concerns over the timing of the release, just ahead of upcoming elections in several states.
The Court, while not going into the merits of the film itself, held that the legal procedure for challenging CBFC certification must be followed and ensured that no irreparable damage occurs in the interim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
9 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC moots fast-track courts for criminal trials in Delhi-NCR
The Supreme Court on Thursday mooted the creation of fast-track courts in Delhi to expedite trials in cases lodged against 'professional' gangsters and directed both the Delhi government and the Centre to formulate a concrete proposal in this regard within four weeks. At the core of the court's concern was to nip the possibility of such persons securing bail and unleashing a spectre of violence. (HT Archive) The court passed the order after being informed by the Delhi Police, in an affidavit, that 288 cases against gangsters and criminal gangs operating in Delhi are pending trial. Only 108 cases have reached the stage of framing of charges. The affidavit also indicated that by any rate, it will take three to four years for a case to move from framing of charges to prosecution evidence being taken up. So far, only 25% of cases have reached the prosecution evidence stage, the first step of trial, it said. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi found the delay impeding the right of the accused to a speedy trial. At the same time, the bench raised a larger issue about such gangsters securing bail on the grounds of prolonged trials. Even the security of witnesses gets compromised in these situations, the bench added. The court said, 'This week, we read an instance where a witness was murdered. Who is going to depose against gangsters? What is the protective cover that you give them? They are your eyes and ears. If you don't protect them, public confidence in the criminal justice system gets affected and rule of law gets absolutely impaired in the eyes of the common man.' At the core of the court's concern was to nip the possibility of such persons securing bail and unleashing a spectre of violence. The bench said, 'What is happening in the geographical belt of Delhi near to Haryana... They commit crime there and come to Delhi. Just yesterday, a man who committed a murder in Panipat was arrested from Ghaziabad. Society needs to get rid of these gangsters. They must be dealt with ruthlessly. We should not have any misplaced sympathy for them.' While the Delhi Police suggested the court set up dedicated court complexes within jail premises for trial of such hardened criminals, the court said that the issue needs to be dealt with holistically, as such courts will require adequate judicial manpower, support staff and infrastructure. The bench said, 'While the Delhi High Court will not have any objection to providing speedy trial by establishing dedicated courts, this can only happen provided that the Union government and the state of Delhi resolve to introduce a mechanism like fast-track courts (FTC) for trial of these cases.' Making Centre a party to the proceedings, the court said, 'Keeping in mind the pendency of 288 cases against gangsters, there will have to be appropriate strength of courts to ensure cases can be equitably distributed and trial can be held on day-to-day basis.... If such a decision is taken by appropriate authority, it seems to us that all pending trials can be brought to an end.' The court asked additional solicitor general (ASG) SD Sanjay, appearing for the Delhi Police, to also appear for the Centre and give effect to the order. The court agreed to pass subsequent directions for expediting the hearing of such cases once a resolution is adopted by the Centre and the Delhi government. The matter will next be heard after four weeks. The court made the observations while hearing a bail petition filed by one Mahesh Khatri alias Bholi, who is facing 55 criminal cases, many of which are heinous offences. In February, the court refused him bail but expanded the scope of the petition by asking the Delhi Police to specify whether a mechanism could be introduced for a speedy trial in cases concerning gangsters. The Delhi Police affidavit, filed in response to this order, noted that while multiple factors lead to delayed trials, the primary reason was that courts hearing cases against such gangsters facing charges under the Indian Penal Code and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) handle other routine matters and are burdened with multiple sensitive matters involving the IPC, economic offences and money laundering, among others. ASG Sanjay said that, considering these aspects, the Delhi Police urged the court to set up dedicated court complexes on jail premises. This would not only expedite cases against gangsters but prevent them from getting bail. At the same time, it will enable better safety for witnesses and accused persons and will reduce the opportunity available for such criminals to generate reels and other social media content glamourising their lives, something that is observed when members of gangs are transported from jails to court complexes, it said. The ASG assured the court that a joint meeting of the Centre and the Delhi government will be held to resolve the issue.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
States rally behind AP in fight for industrial alcohol regulation
Vijayawada: The state govt has sparked a debate over regulatory control of industrial alcohol following a high-profile seizure linked to illicit liquor production. Inspired by Andhra Pradesh 's decisive action, several states are preparing to push the Centre for jurisdiction over industrial alcohol — a domain traditionally under central authority. AP recently invoked a Supreme Court ruling to file criminal cases against individuals illegally transporting spirit intended for spurious liquor. In a major crackdown recently, excise and prohibition officials arrested 36 individuals and seized over 2,232 litres of diverted spirit, alongside counterfeit liquor bottles and packaging materials. Investigations unearthed a well-organised supply chain: spirit obtained under industrial pretenses like hand sanitizer production was rerouted for illegal liquor manufacture. Two repeat offenders confessed to sourcing ethanol via a Telangana-based pharma firm exploiting its RS-III license and pandemic-era permissions. The company—granted temporary sanitizer production rights during Covid-19 — allegedly misused them by diverting undenatured ethanol to operators in Andhra Pradesh. The network extended beyond Andhra Pradesh, with supporting materials like empty liquor bottles, brand labels, and caps being procured from Mumbai-based vendors— underscoring its scale and sophistication The Palakollu case prompted other states to seek input from AP authorities, who have since been approached for guidance and invited to lead a seminar on regulatory powers over industrial alcohol. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Clearance Sale: Exclusive handcrafted handbags - now 70% off Handmakers Report Read Now Undo However, the issue took a new twist after the arrival of GST regime. While the states continue to demand for control, the Centre made it clear that it has complete power to regulate, tax and penalise industrial alcohol. The states got the final relief with the latest Supreme Court judgement in Uttar Pradesh Vs Lalita Prasad and others case in 2024. A judgement by a nine-member judge (Constitutional bench) finally said that states would continue to have power on industrial alcohol to regulate the mechanism of supply of alcohol to industries and also potable alcohol.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC tears into HC judge for bail to actor Darshan
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday raised an objection to Karnataka high court order granting bail to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case and said that the reasoning given by HC to justify relief is troubling it. Reserving the order on Karnataka govt plea for cancellation of bail, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed, "In a lighter vein, don't you think the high court has basically dictated an order acquittal of all seven? There are ways and ways of assigning reasons. The manner in which the Karnataka high court has dictated the order, very sorry to say, but does the high court dictate the same type of orders in all bail applications? What is troubling us is the approach of the high court! Look at the manner in which bail application is dealt. ..That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the high court? We can understand a session judge committing such mistakes. A high court judge committing such a mistake?" The bench said the way in which the bail order was dictated by Karnataka high court, it seemed the court had handed over a judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused persons which was not required. Darshan, along with other accused, are charged with the murder of Renukaswamy, who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by the actor's accomplices after he apparently sent obscene messages to Pavithra Gowda, a friend of Darshan. Renukaswamy's body was found in a drain on June 9. As per the police, Darshan paid Rs 50 lakh to four men involved in the planning and execution of the gruesome crime, including arranging for Renukaswamy to be brought to Bengaluru.
