Udaipur Files producers move SC challenging Delhi HC stay order on release
A day before its release, the High Court blocked the film's release.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition filed by the makers.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the producers, told the court that the movie had already been approved by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and stopping its release is a violation of their fundamental rights.
ANI quoted Advocate Pulkit Agarwal saying, "We have requested the Supreme Court to cancel the Delhi High Court's order and allow the movie to be released. The court said it will take up the matter in the next 2-3 days."
Meanwhile, the stay on the film release will remain in place until the central government decides on a revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which challenges the CBFC's approval of the film.
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.
The petitioners argued that the release of the Udaipur Files could disturb communal harmony, posing a serious threat to public order, given the sensitive nature of the subject.
Udaipur Files is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was killed by two men allegedly angered by a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The incident had triggered national outrage.
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 said.
The petitioners also claimed that the film sensationalises the incident and may further inflame tensions. They also raised questions over the timing of the film release, just ahead of upcoming elections in several states across India.
The film stars Vijay Raaz, Rajneesh Duggal, and Preeti Jhangiani. It is directed by Bharat S. Shrinate and Jayant Sinha.
It is written by written by Amit Jani, Bharat Singh, and Jayant Sinha. Produced by Amit Jani, the film is distributed by Reliance Entertainment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘What signs of reformation has he shown?': Priyadarshini Mattoo's family relives horror of her death as killer seeks freedom
Hemant Mattoo hadn't felt this kind of rage in years. When he read about the Delhi High Court directing that the case for premature release of his sister's killer be considered afresh, it struck like a blow. But anger quickly gave way to disbelief when he saw the reason: the convict had shown an 'element of reformation.' Nearly three decades ago, his sister, Delhi University law student Priyadarshini Mattoo, was killed. She was 25. The accused was a college senior and an IPS officer's son, Santosh Kumar Singh. He had been pursuing her relentlessly in the months leading up to her death. On January 23, 1996, while Priyadarshini was alone at home, Santosh would be seen by a neighbour entering her house in the evening. She would later be found lying under her bed, with a room heater's cord wrapped around her neck — she had been brutally raped and murdered. For Hemant, the decades since her killing have been filled with recurring waves of fury. First, when the district court nearly let Santosh walk free, then when the Supreme Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, and again upon learning that he was lodged in an open prison, afforded freedoms unimaginable to the family he destroyed. Speaking to The Indian Express, Hemant, who is settled in Canada, says, 'I want to know what signs of reformation he has shown. Has he apologised to my family? Has he apologised to his own family? He's never even approached us. He still maintains his innocence.' His anger mounts as he speaks further. 'He's been getting the mild side of the stick ever since he committed the crime. It's a joke that the justice system has played with us…' On July 1, the HC had directed the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to consider the case of Santosh's premature release afresh. Holding the SRB's decision to deny Santosh, along with two other prisoners, premature release as suffering from 'material procedural and legal infirmities', the court highlighted several lacunae in the current process undertaken by the board while deciding applications for early release of prisoners. A fresh decision is to be taken within four months. 'She faced months of harassment' Hemant vividly remembers that fateful January day. He was in Kuwait at the time when he got a call around 4 pm. It was from a family friend, who broke the news to him. 'The ground seemed to shift under my feet,' he says. By the time he reached Delhi, almost the entire Kashmiri Pandit community had gathered to pay their condolences. 'They first thought the murder was a militant attack. Then they got to know it was a guy who did it, a college student… Nothing like that had ever happened within our community.' Hemant pauses for a moment before saying, 'Well, apart from the exodus.' It had just been a few years after the Kashmiri Pandits had been forcibly exiled from the valley. The Mattoos had moved from Srinagar to Jammu. After Priyadarshini moved to the Capital to pursue her studies in Law, her father, Chaman Lal Mattoo, took up a job as chairman of a non-profit organisation in Delhi. However, their parents would soon notice how troubled Priyadarshini was in college. She had caught the eye of Santosh, a senior, and he was determined to woo her. In February 1995, he followed her on his bike and stopped her car at a traffic light. Priyadarshini responded by lodging a complaint at the R K Puram police station, where he signed an undertaking that he wouldn't harass her again. Six months later, in August, Santosh followed her home to Vasant Kunj and tried to break into the house. Priyadarshini went to the police. Again, the police made him sign an undertaking. By October, Priyadarshini's parents were aware of the routine harassment she was facing. She and her father approached the Commissioner of Police, seeking protection. She was subsequently assigned a Personal Security Officer (PSO). That same day, she debriefed the Dean of the Faculty of Law about the harassment, who, in turn, called Santosh and requested him to desist. Furious at her resistance, Santosh would attempt to get her expelled from college by accusing her of pursuing two degrees simultaneously. Priyadarshini had to give a detailed explanation to the authorities, reiterating Santosh's ploys of harassment. From then on, his behaviour saw an escalation. In November, he grabbed hold of her arm in college and refused to let go. This time, Priyadarshini filed a complaint and an FIR was registered at Maurice Nagar police station under IPC Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). Santosh was arrested — before being let go on a personal bond, a signed letter promising the police that he'll appear in court when he is summoned. By December 1995, Priyadarshini was a nervous wreck. Hemant, who had come to Delhi for a vacation, recalls that she looked stressed. '… I remember she looked scared and stressed. When I asked her, she brushed it off as exam stress… she never told me anything. Later, when I demanded why I was kept in the dark, my cousins said nobody wanted me to worry…' By January next year, she was gone. The post-mortem report noted 19 injuries and three broken ribs. Santosh had also used his motorcycle helmet to bludgeon her head, a piece of evidence that would become crucial in the High Court case. When the helmet was submitted as evidence, it was damaged — the visor was broken, containing specks of blood. Moreover, Priyadarshini's PSO and the neighbour who saw Santosh entering the house would note in their testimonies that they had seen the same helmet with him, but undamaged and with a visor. During Priyadarshini's last rites, their mother confided in Hemant that they'd approached Santosh's father. 'They had asked him to make his son stop troubling Priya…,' recalls Hemant bitterly. But his father's faith in the judiciary was never shaken. 'He always believed the right thing would be done. He told me, 'We'll do it the right way, we'll take the legal route'… He sent me back to Kuwait as well because he was scared I'd do something stupid,' Hemant says. 'She was a tomboy, funny and fearless' Back in Kuwait, Hemant felt unmoored. 'Those days, I walked around like there was no life in me… She was eight years younger, she was my baby sister,' he says. He recalls Priyadarshini as a funny, gregarious, fearless and tomboyish girl. 'She was an incredible prankster. She would do this thing back when we were in Srinagar. When someone would come to visit our house, she'd tell them that their scooter was in the way and a neighbour had asked us to move it; could she have the keys? She'd then take the vehicle for a joy ride,' Hemant laughs. 'You could never be sad around her; she was always brimming with jokes. She was good at mimicry too — she only had to listen to someone talk once… Back then, she'd pick fights over politics with the boys in Nawabazaar. We used to say, 'We need to find a girl for this girl' because she was so tomboyish…,' he says. If Priyadarshini were still here, Hemant says, she'd probably have moved to the States or Canada after her studies. 'After we left Kashmir, we felt out of place everywhere. We were always looking for a place to settle down and put down our roots. He (Santosh) really took what little we had left,' says Hemant.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Creating fear to stop people helping law is a terror act: Supreme Court
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Indicating that an offence cannot be said to be a terror act only if an accused is convicted under an anti-terror law, Supreme Court on Tuesday said creating an atmosphere of fear to prevent people from taking the side of law by killing an army informer is also a terrorist act despite anti-terror law not being invoked in the case. A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti did not agree that the killing of three civilians, including the army informer, in J&K with an AK-47 was not a terror act because the conviction was not secured under an anti-terror law, and expressed its reservation in entertaining a remission plea of a convict who has spent 27 years in jail in the case. Prisoner Ghulam Mohammad Bhat took the stand that he was not convicted under an anti-terror law, but only under the Indian Penal Code for murder, and therefore, his act cannot be termed a terrorist act. The J&K government told SC that a convict undergoing life imprisonment for a terror act was not entitled for remission under state policy. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the prisoner, said Bhat was convicted only under IPC section 302 (murder) and the Arms Act, and not under the then anti-terror legislation TADA. "Nothing was proved in court to attract TADA provisions. The trial court or the HC never found it to be a terrorist act," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it legal? How to get Internet without paying a subscription? Techno Mag Learn More Undo Additional solicitor general K M Natraj, appearing for the J&K government, submitted that explosive devices, including a weapon to launch grenades, were also reportedly recovered from the scene of incident and it was an act of terror, it was not a simple murder. Agreeing with Gonsalves, the bench said, "If you want to create fear among people to ensure that no one approaches authorities against the illegal act then it is a terror act and we cannot close our eyes. "This was done to create havoc to ensure that no one dares to side with the law, then it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act and remission cannot be granted under the policy. You have to challenge the remission policy. " SC, however, allowed Gonsalves's plea to be allowed to challenge the J&K remission policy within the ongoing proceedings.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
No bar on parole, furlough if appeal pending in SC: HC
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday clarified that prison authorities are empowered to decide pleas for parole and furlough of inmates even if their appeal is pending in the Supreme Court. It answered a reference received from a single judge that emerged from a challenge to the Delhi Prison Rules filed by several former policemen serving jail terms in the notorious Hashimpura massacre case of Uttar Pradesh. "Thus, the Delhi Prison Rules do not bar consideration of parole and furlough if the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. It is an altogether different question as to whether, in the facts of a specific case, the prison authorities ought to grant parole or furlough if the Supreme Court is seized of the matter either in a special leave petition or in an appeal. The grant or non-grant of parole and furlough on merits would depend on the facts of each case," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma held. The court pointed out that there could be a situation where the apex court may have specifically refused to grant suspension of sentence or refused bail to a particular convict. "The authorities would have to bear in mind the non-grant of suspension or bail by the Supreme Court or other relevant circumstances, and the same may have an impact on the consideration of parole/furlough," it noted. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure your family's future! ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "In such cases," HC said, "a deeper scrutiny would be required by the prison authorities as to whether parole or furlough could be granted to the convict." The bench emphasised that the mere fact that the authorities could exercise power did not mean parole or furlough ought to be granted as a matter of right, and whether relief could be granted or not was a different issue altogether and depended on the facts of each case. Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release of a convict from jail. While parole is granted to the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason. The high court was dealing with a batch of petitions by the convicts whose plea for furlough was not entertained essentially on the ground that their appeals are pending before the Supreme Court. "To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a special leave petition or appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations," it highlighted. The court put an end to an earlier interpretation of Rule 1224 of jail that barred parole/furlough being granted if the appeal is pending in the high court. Later, a court ruling extended the bar to also the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court, which was reversed on Tuesday by the bigger bench. The high court sent each of the petitioners back to the bench that was hearing their plea for parole/furlough, noting that a decision must be made in light of the reference answered by it.
