Jamiat chief moves Delhi HC to seek stay on release of film on Kanhaiya Lal murder case
The petition has been filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president and principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, and is likely to come up for hearing on Wednesday.
Madani has claimed in the petition that a trailer of the movie, released on June 26, 2025 was replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in 2022, and carries every potential to again stoke the same communal sentiments.
"The movie, in fact unabashedly depicts court scenes, the statement made by a sitting chief minister supporting one party in the case and also explicitly mentions the controversial statement made by a politician - Nupur Sharma - which had resulted in communal violence and, in turn, the gruesome murder of Kanhaiya Lal," the petition claimed.
It said that a mere viewing of the trailer as released leaves no manner of doubt as to the plot of the movie as the trailer itself seeks to portray an entire community in a prejudicial manner, thereby violating the right to live with dignity for the members of the community.
"The trailer itself is sufficient to demonstrate its highly provocative nature, capable of creating a wedge between the communities which may cause serious disturbance to public peace and public order across the country, which had demonstrably happened with the same set of statements that are now being repeated in the movie," it said.
The petitioner said that while the murder of Kanhaiya Lal was carried out by two fanatics, the trailer seeks to falsely portray the same as being carried out with the complicity of the religious heads/leaders of the community.
"The release of the film Udaipur Files has the potential to inflame communal tensions and disrupt public order," the petition claimed.
The film's release may result in "vilifying an entire religious community, foster hatred and severely undermine the fabric of religious harmony in the country which amounts to a direct contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it promotes discrimination, and threatens the right to life with dignity and security for an entire community", it alleged.
The petition also claimed that the film violates the constitutional morality by weaponising the freedom of expression to weaken the constitutional vision of a plural, inclusive, and secular India, and instead attempts to mainstream narratives that deepen social and religious divisions.
"Artistic expression, no matter how evocative, cannot be permitted to become a vehicle to crush fraternity and uproot the ethical foundations of the nation as enshrined in the Constitution," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC questions prolonged detention in NE riots case
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday wondered how long the prosecution can oppose bail for accused persons jailed in connection with the Feb 2020 riots that rocked northeast Delhi. During the hearing of one such case, the court asked Delhi Police how long the accused people could be kept in jail, after highlighting the passage of five years and the fact that arguments on charge were still not concluded in the terror case related to the 2020 riots. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar posed the question to Delhi Police during the hearing of the bail application of Tasleem Ahmed, accused in a case related to an alleged larger conspiracy in the riots, lodged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Ahmed, the owner of a coaching centre, is accused of being part of the larger conspiracy case in relation to the riots. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "Five years have gone by. Even arguments on charge have not completed. In matters like this, 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside?" the bench observed, pointing out the delay the trial is likely to take. The court made the query after the accused's advocate, Mehmood Pracha, raised the issue of delay in the proceedings in the case. Pracha said he won't be making submissions on the case's merit but would seek relief on the ground of parity in relation to the delay in trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like One plan. Total peace of mind. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo He cited the examples of co-accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail on the ground of delay in 2021. "He (Ahmed) was arrested on June 24, 2020… I have already spent five years (in jail)," Pracha argued, seeking urgent relief. He claimed his client never caused a delay in the case proceedings. Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed the submission, arguing that the prosecution cannot be blamed for the delay in trial as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned at the accused persons' request. Pracha went ahead to confine his argument to the delay in trial. The court will continue to hear arguments on July 9. The violence in northeast Delhi in Feb 2020 left at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Mass job cuts, layoffs soon in U.S? Check who will be fired?
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit."The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."The 9th Circuit's ruling prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Court."The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," they wrote, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.A1. The full form of DOGE is Department of Government Efficiency.A2. President of USA is Donald Trump.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
BRS to start rail blockade if BJP, Congress continue to delay implementation of Telangana OBC quota Bill: Kavitha
Blaming the Congress and the BJP for their delay in implementing a Bill passed by the Telangana Assembly to grant 42% reservation for other backward classes (OBCs), Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) leader K. Kavitha said on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) that her party will launch a rail blockade agitation on July 17 if a government order to implement the law is not issued in the next State Cabinet meeting. She asked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to direct Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy to issue the order using the provisions of the Constitution. Ms. Kavitha also urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act so that the legislation, which is at present awaiting approval from President Droupadi Murmu, can be notified soon. 'If the Backward Classes Bill is not approved, not a single train wheel will be allowed to move forward from Telangana,' she said. 'Deceiving the backward classes' Ms. Kavitha accused both the Congress, in power at the State, and the BJP-ruled Central government of deceiving the backward classes (BCs). 'Opposition to BCs is ingrained in BJP's DNA. If the BC Bill is not approved, 2.5 crore BC children in Telangana will teach BJP a lesson,' she said. Talking to reporters in the national capital on Tuesday, the BRS leader said that she would write to all political parties seeking their support for the implementation of BC reservations. She said the State government is trying to wash its hands of the matter after sending the Bill to the President. 'Why isn't Rahul Gandhi making a phone call to Revanth Reddy to issue the Government Order? If he truly supports the Constitution, he should ensure that the Revanth government enforces the 42% reservation through a Government Order,' she said.
