Appeal filed by Maulana Arshad Madani before IB Ministry seeking halt of 'Udaipur Files'
The film was scheduled to be released on July 11.
A day before its release, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' till the Centre decides the revision plea of the petitioners, including that of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President challenging the grant of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification.
Following the High Court's direction to file an appeal regarding the stay on the screening and reconsideration of the certificate issued by the Censor Board, Maulana Arshad Madani's lawyers on Monday submitted an appeal before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is expected that the Ministry may hold a hearing on this application in the coming days.
Meanwhile, the film's producer, Amit Jani has challenged the Delhi High Court's decision in Supreme Court of India. On the request of the film producer's lawyer, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi assured that the petition will be heard.
Maulana Arshad Madani also filed a caveat in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, will represent Maulana Arshad Madani in Supreme Court.
In the petition submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on behalf of Maulana Arshad Madani, it has been stated that films like 'Udaipur Files' promote division within society and that the promotion of such a film will tarnish India's image globally.
The petition further states that Hindus and Muslims have lived together peacefully in our country for centuries, and therefore, the screening of such films could pose a serious threat to communal harmony. It is emphasized that the entire film is based on hatred, and its exhibition could disturb the peace and harmony of the nation.
The Government of India has also been reminded that in the past, India faced international embarrassment and condemnation due to the remarks made by Nupur Sharma. At that time, the Government of India had issued a diplomatic statement affirming that India respects all religions and communities and removed Nupur Sharma from her position as spokesperson as a consequence of her remarks. It was due to these actions that some of the mistrust toward India on international platforms was reduced, and the country's image saw a relative improvement.
The Government of India has also been informed that the past and present conduct of the filmmaker, Amit Jani, is filled with instances of incitement and disruptive behavior.
Secondly, the film presents fabricated content that has no connection with reality. It also depicts the character of Nupur Sharma, whose controversial statement sparked nationwide protests and international outcry.
The petition further states that despite the removal of 55 scenes, the film still appears largely unchanged. It is argued that the promotion of this film could incite violence in the country. The petition emphasizes that this film is not in the national interest, and therefore, the certificate granted for its screening should be revoked.
As per the Delhi High Court's directive, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting must hear Maulana Arshad Madani's appeal and deliver a decision within one week. In the meantime, the ban on the film's release will remain in effect. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC declines plea to deregister AIMIM, suggests broader petition on communal appeals
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to deregister parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen as a political party. A bench of justices Surya Kant and justice Joymala Bagchi suggested that the petitioner could file a plea on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements. "We are not on communal parties , etc. Sometimes, regional parties invoke regional sentiments... So what should be done... There are parties who also invoke caste issues that are equally dangerous. Without criticising anyone, such issues can be raised," justice Kant said. The bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh plea raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives. The plea was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari , who alleged that AIMIM 's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone, violating the principle of secularism, and hence it cannot be recognised as a political party. The bench, however, observed that as per the constitution of the party, its objective is to work for every backward section. The bench said the party's constitution is "for every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community... backward both economically and in the field of education... that's what the Constitution professes". Justice Kant said, "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution... party's political manifesto or constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution." The senior judge pointed out that India's Constitution grants protection to minorities. "Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability; that is absolutely offending. That must be struck down, that must be banned... Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution... What is only within the framework of the Constitution (that may not be objectionable)," justice Kant said. SC advised the petitioner to file a "neutral" petition.
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses petition against Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Savarkar
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) rejected and refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging that Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi violated the petitioner's rights by making 'immature' remarks about Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The petition sought the court to issue directions to the Congress leader that he should read his petition and learn about Savarkar before making 'irresponsible' statements. The 125-page petition, filed by Professor Pankaj K. Phadnis, 65, from Mumbai and the founding president of Abhinav Bharat Congress, a public policy think tank, mentioned history and research work by the petitioner on Savarkar. The petitioner said that Mr. Gandhi, in London in March 2023, had tried to paint Savarkar as someone who takes pleasure in the humiliation of Muslims. He further said that Mr. Gandhi tried to portray Savarkar as a coward and in a derogatory reference at a press conference held on March 25, 2023, where he said, 'My name is not Savarkar, I am Gandhi and Gandhi does not make apologies to anyone.' 'Rahul Gandhi is LoP in Lok Sabha and could well become Prime Minister of India in the future. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to take liberties with facts to denigrate respected leaders of freedom struggle and prevent the young from being in a position to fulfil their fundamental duties. The only way to prevent him from causing harm to the nation is by an expert such as the petitioner to step into the box, depose comprehensive facts about Shri Savarkar and allow himself to be cross examined by Rahul Gandhi to establish facts once and for all,' the petitioner said, asking the court to direct Mr. Gandhi to read the contents of his petition and learn about Savarkar. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne observed that the Supreme Court had already dismissed a similar petition filed by Mr. Phadnis and said that the court could not direct Mr. Gandhi to read the contents of the petition and remove his ignorance about Vinayak Savarkar. 'In your petition, your prayer is to direct him to personally study and read your petition. How can the court compel him to read your petition? This court cannot issue directions to Rahul Gandhi to study the contents of this petition and remove ignorance about the contribution of Savarkar. We do not know if he will become Prime Minister or not. Do you know that he will become the Prime Minister?' the Bench noted and disposed of the petition. The court noted that a criminal defamation case had already been filed against Mr. Gandhi by Satyaki Savarkar, grand nephew of Vinayak Savarkar, and that the same was pending before a special MP/MLA Court in Pune.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Professors stare at shut doors in Punjab, govt silent
Ludhiana: A thousand doors that opened wide after years are bolted shut within a day. In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through Punjab's education system, the Supreme Court on Monday quashed the appointments of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians recruited in a landmark 2021 drive, ending the hopes of hundreds of qualified educators and reigniting fears over the state's crumbling higher education infrastructure. The top court found the recruitment process — touted at the time as a revival of govt colleges after two decades of hiring freeze — violated University Grants Commission (UGC) norms and lacked procedural integrity. The ruling has affected 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians who had joined more than 150 colleges across Punjab, some as recently as six months ago, others nearing the end of their probation. The fallout is most acute in Ludhiana district, where 116 teachers now face termination. "This affects 116 families here alone," said Jaspreet Sivian, a senior member of the teachers' coordination committee. "Across the state, it's a thousand homes. People who waited years, met every eligibility rule — NET, PhD, teaching experience — are now being told none of it matters. It's heartbreaking." The Supreme Court held that bypassing the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and omitting key academic assessments, including viva voce, invalidated the appointments. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo The teachers, however, argue that the blame lies squarely with flawed govt procedure, not the candidates. "Why should we pay the price for bureaucratic shortcuts?" asked a professor from a Ludhiana college. "We cleared every bar the system set for us. Now we're being punished for the state's mistakes. And the worst part? Not a single word yet from the Punjab govt." Many affected teachers say they have now aged out of eligibility for future recruitment. Saurabh Kumar, a Hindi professor with 12 years of experience, had cleared NET (National Eligibility Test) and earned a PhD. But now, at 38, he exceeds the general category age limit of 37. "I was regularised finally after years of part-time work. And now, I may never be eligible again," he said. The pain is amplified by silence. "The verdict came yesterday. Still, the govt hasn't announced a single step, not a plan, not even an apology," said another member of the faculty. "The silence is deafening." Several teachers had already left private jobs to join govt posts under the impression of long-term stability. Institutes that saw hope for academic revival finally — like Ludhiana's SCD Govt College, which had only 6 permanent teachers before 2021 — now face returning to those conditions. The committee representing the affected teachers has announced its intention to file a review petition, and if needed, a curative one — the last legal recourse available. "Until then, no terminations should be issued," Sivian pleaded. "The Punjab govt should stand with us. Over a thousand families are now in crisis after two decades of waiting and years of honest service." The ruling has also drawn condemnation from alumni and education advocates. Brij Bhushan Goyal, alumnus and office-bearer of SCD College's alumni association, said: "This is not just the loss of jobs. It's the collapse of morale in our academic institutes. The state failed to defend its decision in court, and the victims are our teachers. What a pity. What a waste." What do you tell a teacher who taught through illness, who moved cities, who hung family hopes on a govt seal? What do you tell a scholar who has aged out of a professionthat never let her in properly? What do you tell a student who sees his classroom grow silent as staff rooms empty and chalkboards wait in vain? With campuses now facing staffing chaos and hundreds of careers on the brink, the verdict has not just ended appointments — it has reopened a crisis in public higher education that Punjab had only just begun to address.
