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
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Will reduce opportunities for reels, fewer grounds for seeking bail: Delhi Police request SC to set up special courts within jails for trying gangsters
The Delhi Police Thursday requested the Supreme Court to examine if dedicated court complexes can be established within jail premises to conduct trials in criminal gang-related offences, with charges to be framed in over 60 per cent of cases. In an affidavit filed Wednesday, Hareshwar V Swami, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer North district, said one of the reasons for the proposition is to reduce 'opportunities for generation of reels and other social media content glamourising the criminals' lives which are observed when gang related criminals are transported from jails to court complexes at various locations.' The Delhi Police also said there would be fewer opportunities or grounds for seeking bail on grounds of delay, better control over safety and security measures, including for witnesses and accused persons, and 'timely invocation of special statutes' such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the National Security Act (NSA), etc, if dedicated court complexes are set up inside jail premises. Additional Solicitor General S D Sanjay appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police during the hearing Thursday. In March this year, the apex court suggested setting up special courts to try such criminals. '… in the larger interest of society, it is imperative upon authorities to evolve a mechanism to provide a speedy and time-bound trial. One of the effective recourses could be to establish special courts to conclude trials on a day-to-day basis. A clear mandate can be fixed for such courts that, regardless of the attempts, if any, made by the defence counsel to prolong the trial, the court will proceed with it and conclude the same within the prescribed timeline,' the court said in its March 19 order. The Delhi Police, in the affidavit, said the primary reason for delays in conducting trial proceedings is the fact that presently, 'the designated courts handle other routine matters such as IPC/BNS offences, EOW matters, ED cases, etc, making the courts burdened with multiple sensitive matters.' They have also attributed the delay to the fact that most of the cases registered against these gang members are under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and are being tried under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) whereas it is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that includes provisions of speedy and expeditious trial, which remains unavailable 'for majority of trials'. The Delhi Police have secured convictions in only 2 per cent or 3 cases of the 108 cases against criminal gang members so far, and 10 cases have resulted in acquittal or discharge. Over 80 per cent (89) of the 108 cases are currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. According to the Delhi Police, the average time taken for disposing of the 13 cases that resulted in an outcome — either conviction/acquittal/discharge — was two years after the charges were framed. In April, the Supreme Court was informed that 95 organised criminal gangs have been identified in Delhi, comprising an aggregate of 1,109 members, all of whom are presently undergoing trial proceedings Last November, the top court expressed concern that hardened criminals commit crimes while out on bail, which is often granted on the grounds of a delay in trial. The SC's observation had come while dealing with a bail plea by gangster Mahesh Khatri alias Bholi. While refusing him bail, the court noted that the oldest case against him, dating back to 2013, remains pending to date. INFOGRAPH Pendency in trial of criminal cases against criminal gangs operating in Delhi Total pending cases: 288 Charges framed: 108 cases Time period
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
PM Modi's visit to UK; Tejashwi Yadav threatens Bihar election boycott
5:20 The Supreme Court has issued a notice on the Maharashtra government's plea challenging the Bombay High Court's acquittal of all accused in the 2006 Mumbai terror bomb blasts case. In an interim order, the Apex Court stayed the High Court judgment, but only to the extent that it cannot be treated as a legal precedent for other cases, particularly those under the MCOCA law. The court clarified that the acquitted individuals, who have already been released, will not be sent back to jail. The Bombay High Court, in its ruling, had stated that the prosecution "utterly failed to prove the charges" and noted that investigators appeared to have been under pressure. The 2006 blasts resulted in the deaths of 189 people. The Supreme Court has previously remarked that a stay on an acquittal is the "rarest of rare," setting a high bar for the state's appeal.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Renukaswamy murder: HC bail order perverse use of discretionary powers, says SC
New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday called the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case a 'perverse exercise" of discretionary power. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan went on to reserve the verdict on Karnataka government's appeal against the December 13, 2024 order of the high court granting bail to the actor and co-accused. The top court heard submissions of senior advocates Siddhath Luthra, appearing for the state government, and Siddharth Dave and others, representing the accused in the case. It took on records the written note filed by the state and a few others while asking the counsel for remaining accused persons to file short notes within a week. Questioning the grant of the reprieve, Justice Pardiwala asked defence counsel by saying, 'Don't you think that the high court has dictated an order of acquittal of seven accused while deciding bail petitions?" The judge went on, 'What is worrying is that the manner in which the high court dictated the bail order…does the high court dictate the same kind of order in every bail matter?" The bench further questioned the way the high court dealt with the statements of two eye witnesses, Kiran and Puneet, calling them 'unreliable witnesses". 'This (the grant of bail) is the perverse exercise of discretionary powers in grant of bail to accused," Justice Pardiwala said. Pointing out all accused persons were out on bail and the trial was yet to start, the court asked, 'Has the high court applied its mind judicially?" On July 17, the bench expressed its reservation over the high court granting bail to the accused and said it was 'not at all convinced" by the manner in which the discretionary power exercised. Justice Pardiwala said, 'To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the high court has exercised discretion." The court underlined the need to be convinced that there was 'no good reason for this court to interfere". Luthra argued the bail granted by the high court was unjustified, especially in a case involving serious charges under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. He argued the high court effectively granted a 'pre-trial acquittal" without properly examining key evidence, including statements of eyewitnesses and forensic findings. Luthra elaborated on how CCTV footage from the apartment complex, where the body was allegedly dumped, revealed suspicious vehicle movement. He also highlighted forensic evidence, including bloodstains found on items linked to the crime scene and the accused. He underscored the gravity of the charges and the circumstantial evidence indicating a conspiracy. Defending bail, Dave argued that the investigation was flawed and that the credibility of the eyewitnesses was questionable due to delayed statements. Dave pointed out that charges were yet to be framed and the trial has not commenced. The bench, however, expressed concern over the high court's approach, especially in handling the gravity of murder charge. 'We will not repeat the mistake of the high court. We are not here to decide guilt or innocence, only to examine whether bail was rightly granted," Justice Pardiwala said. Darshan, along with actress Pavithra Gowda and several others, is accused of abducting and torturing 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan who allegedly sent obscene messages to Pavithra. The police alleged the victim was held in a shed in Bengaluru for three days in June 2024, tortured and his body was recovered from a drain. The top court on January 24 issued the notices to the actor, Pavithra Gowda, and others in the case on the plea of the state government. Darshan was arrested on June 11, 2024, for allegedly killing his fan Renukaswamy on June 8 the same year after he reportedly sent obscene messages to Gowda. The actor was arrested and lodged at the Parappana Agrahara Jail in Bengaluru but when a photograph of him relaxing with some other jail inmates went viral, he was transferred to Ballari Central Jail. The state moved the top court against the bail on January 6. top videos View all The mortal remains of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, an autorickshaw driver, were discovered on June 9, 2024. He allegedly succumbed to injuries after being attacked on the orders of Darshan, who reportedly urged his fans to accost and kidnap Renukaswamy for posting derogatory comments about Gowda on social media. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) 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.
