Udaipur Files: Delhi HC temporarily stays film's release

Indian Express

10-07-2025

After a marathon hearing of over four hours, the Delhi High Court Thursday temporarily stayed the release of the film, Udaipur Files. The film was set for release on Friday, July 11. The court's temporary relief comes after it was highlighted that the thematic expression of the film was akin to hate speech and vilification of Muslims.
The petitioner, Maulana Arshad Madani, Principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband, had filed the PIL pointing out that the movie, purportedly based on the murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal on alleged communal grounds in 2022, is 'replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in the very recent past and thus carry every potential to again stoke the same communal sentiments'.
The division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal relegated the petitioner to the Central government to seek a review of the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant a certificate greenlighting the release of the film.
The HC-directed stay shall be operational till the time the central government decides the application for interim relief that Madani may ask for, including suspension from exhibition of the film. As per the court-directed timelines, the HC-directed stay can then range from July 14 until a maximum of July 21.
The CBFC told the court that the film had already undergone 55 cuts that the Board had directed the makers to incorporate.
Madani's counsel, who were seeking the court's intervention in setting aside the CBFC certifications granted to the film as well as its trailer, were granted an opportunity to view the film ahead of its release, following the court's direction to this effect on Wednesday.
Following the viewing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, vehemently objected to the film's release, impressing before the court that 'this whole movie is visceral hate, nothing short of that', where 'they portray Muslims being violent, being constantly in touch with terrorists in Pakistan'.
But the makers of the film contended that it is an 'India-Pakistan film' and does not vilify any specific community, with 'more than 50% of Muslims portrayed in the movie shown in a positive light'. The Centre, too, argued that the film is not community-specific but rather 'crime-specific'.
Sibal then referred to a report by The Indian Express profiling Amit Jani, the producer of the film.
Furnishing a copy of The Indian Express' report, Sibal requested the court, 'Just read the background of the gentleman who has made this. Where is this country going? Don't let this kind of thing go in the public domain, it is my earnest request, this is not right for the country, and this is not art. This is cinematic vandalism, I'm saying this in national interest, for fraternity.'
Relying on provisions under the Cinematograph Act of 1952, along with the 2023 amendments, as well as a statutory notification of December 6, 1991, which provides for guidelines on certification, the bench ruled that the petitioner had failed to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him — namely to approach the revisional jurisdiction of the central government which is also empowered to revoke an earlier granted certification to a film — before approaching the court.
The court noted that under the central government's revisional powers against a CBFC certification, it is also empowered to pass orders providing for interim measures such as suspension of a film from exhibition.
'It is not that it is impermissible for this court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction even in a case where a petitioner has not exhausted its alternative statutory remedies, but having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration entire scheme of the Act, especially the processes to be gone into at the time of grant of certification, we are of the opinion that petitioner ought to approach the central government by invoking Section 6 of the Act (which deals with revisional powers vested with the central government),' the bench recorded.
The bench granted the petitioner time until Monday (July 14) to approach the central government with a revision petition against the CBFC decision, and further directed that such a petition be decided within a week, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the producer.
The court also permitted Madani to make an application requesting interim measures as contemplated under the Act, and directed that in case such an application is made, it shall be considered and decided.
'Since we are relegating the petitioner to invoke remedy of revision under the Act, we provide that till the application for grant of interim relief is decided by the central government, if moved by the petitioner, there shall be a stay on release of the film,' the court ruled, noting that the purpose of interlocutory orders is to not prejudice the rights of any of the parties and render a cause as infructuous.