New disclaimer, removal of some dialogues: central panel recommends changes in ‘Udaipur Files'; next SC hearing on Thursday
With the Centre placing the order on record, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the hearing on petitions for and against the film's release till July 24, and directed that the stay on the release will continue till then.
The committee, after deliberations and detailed discussions, recommended that the filmmakers 'replace the existing disclaimer with the provided recommended disclaimer' and include a voice-over for the disclaimer; remove the frames in the credits that thank various individuals; replace all instances of the name 'Nutan Sharma', including on the poster, with a new name; besides directing the removal of some dialogues.
The Delhi High Court had stayed the movie's release till the Centre's committee took a call on the matter, and following a writ petition by an accused who contended that releasing the film would jeopardise his right to a free trial.
Apprising the bench about the order of the committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting ministry, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said anything more than what has been done would be violative of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He added, 'It is my personal opinion, having gone through the order.'
Hearing the matter on July 14, the apex court had decided to wait till July 21, by which time it hoped the committee would take a decision.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy said, 'I am challenging the order (of the committee).'
Justice Surya Kant told Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who submitted that the committee had ordered six changes, that he will have to make those changes anyway 'unless you challenge that order and your plea is accepted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC slams officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence over illegal detention, dodgy surveillance
Chandigarh: Virtually reprimanding the officials of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), the Punjab and Haryana high court found prima facie evidence that officials illegally detained a person overnight in violation of his constitutional rights. The court expressed serious concern over procedural lapses, obstruction of a court-appointed warrant officer, and the apparent disregard for fundamental liberties in a high-profile GST investigation. In its detailed order, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that DGGI's actions were legally questionable and constitutionally untenable. The prolonged stay was deemed coercive, especially as the detainee was not free to leave, and his family had to approach the court for his release. Further rejecting the DGGI's claim that CCTV cameras were non-functional due to construction, the court noted that the explanation about faulty CCTVs appeared deliberate and evasive, as all the electronic and digital resources of the zonal office, including the E-office portal, were fully functional. The observations from the HC were made in the wake of a habeas corpus petition filed by Barkha Bansal, seeking the release of her husband Bharat Lal Garg, whom she alleged was unlawfully detained by DGGI officials starting June 4. "It is apparent that while DGGI officials put the detainee under restraint at 5:46 pm on June 5, they did not show any urgency in supplying the grounds of arrest to him. As such, the subsequent process of arrest and remand stands vitiated. Moreover, the DGGI officials also failed to supply the detainee with the 'reasons to believe' that he committed an offence under the CGST Act, necessitating his arrest. Such conduct is in clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in different cases and would therefore render the arrest of the detainee illegal and non est in the eyes of the law," the HC observed. The matter has now been fixed for July 30 for further consideration of the issue revolving around the obstruction caused to the warrant officer appointed by the HC, as well as for the release of the detainee in question. "The Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh zonal unit, is directed to file an affidavit showing complete compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a 2021 case titled Paramvir Singh Saini versus Baljit Singh regarding operational CCTV cameras during interrogation and also to deliberate therein why the directions issued by this court on July 2 regarding the production of records have not been complied with," the HC observed in its order released on Wednesday. In this case, the HC on June 5 appointed a warrant officer to inspect the DRI office located in the Central Revenue Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The warrant officer, accompanied by local police, recovered the detainee from the premises of an IRS officer, where he was allegedly being held under guard by a departmental peon. Later, on July 2, the ADG (GST) was directed to file an affidavit naming all officials present during the incident and disclosing the status of CCTV installations, in line with the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court. Illegal Custody "The court does not find any justifiable reasons to condone keeping the detainee in the zonal office for over 30 hours. Curiously, a prima facie cognisable offence was yet to be made out against the detainee, and in spite of that, he was kept in the zonal office overnight and subjected to prolonged interrogation," said Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
"Fraud And Justice Can't Dwell Together": Top Court Recalls Compensation Order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday recalled its order on compensation awarded over a land in Gautam Budh Nagar in Uttar Pradesh acquired by the Noida authority, saying it was obtained by fraud and has to be erased from the records, being a nullity. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujal Bhuyan and Dipankar Datta adjudicated the dispute over the ownership of land, which was purchased by three people - Reddy Veerana, Vishnu Vardhan and one T Sudhakar - in 1997, and acquired by Noida in 2005 and now forms part of Noida's commercial hub in Sector 18. It was alleged that Mr Veerana fraudulently claimed sole ownership of the land in several proceedings before diverse judicial fora, from civil courts to the high court and to the Supreme Court in 2022, when the top court had passed an order for enhanced compensation to Mr Veerana. Mr Veerana was alleged to have fraudulently ousted Mr Vardhan and Mr Sudhakar and pocketed the compensation amount. Vishnu Vardhan contested the claim of Mr Veerana by initiating several proceedings and sought a recall of the May 2022 order of the court. Justice Datta, who penned the verdict for the bench, said from the multiple decisions of this court on "fraud, what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together". "The legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled." The order added, "However, even if Vishnu had not applied for a review - as a logical corollary of the aforesaid discussions - the decision in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict), too, having been obtained by Reddy by playing fraud, has to be erased from the records being a nullity." The bench also set aside the Allahabad High Court's October 28, 2021, verdict, which accepted Veerana as the sole owner of the property and enhanced the compensation from Rs 152.04 per sq. metre to Rs 1,10,000 per sq. metre, saying the fraud had vitiated the entire proceedings. "As a logical corollary of the impugned order being set aside, it would follow that the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (2022 verdict), upholding the same, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of our inherent powers," the bench ordered. Referring to a 1994 verdict of the top court, the bench said that fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by "taking unfair advantage of another: a deception to gain by another's loss". "We begin with recording the realisation that undoubtedly, there seems to be much more than what has met our eyes. However, like all courts, we are bound to decide cases based on the evidence on record, judicially noticeable facts, and the applicable law. Despite Reddy and Vishnu – and to a certain extent Sudhakar – having used the judicial process obviously to secure their personal interests, we cannot be bystanders," it said. The verdict continued, "If things have happened with a telling effect on public interest, resulting in public funds from the public exchequer being drained, the same has to be dealt with within the bounds of our jurisdiction. In our pursuit for the truth and to uphold the rule of law, we must adhere to established principles unless a valid reason warrants deviation.' The top court remanded the case back to the high court with a direction to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T Sudhakar, the other two owners of the land, as additional respondents.
