Latest news with #CinematographActof1952
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Udaipur Files: Delhi HC temporarily stays film's release
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.
India Gazette
07-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Plea in Delhi HC to halt release of 'Udaipur Files' over allegations of promoting communal hatred
New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): A plea has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to halt the release of the Bollywood film Udaipur Files, which is reportedly inspired by the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan's Udaipur. Filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, the petition alleges that the film may incite communal discord and threaten social harmony. The petition cites the film's trailer, released on June 26, 2025, as containing inflammatory material. It includes alleged references to controversial remarks made by suspended political leader Nupur Sharma and portrays a current Chief Minister in a biased light. According to the petitioner, such elements could rekindle communal tensions reminiscent of 2022. The petition asserts that the trailer distorts the facts of the 2022 murder, implying a conspiracy involving religious figures and institutions, whereas the actual perpetrators were two individuals with extremist motives. The film is accused of portraying Deoband as a hub of radicalism and casting Islamic scholars in a negative role, an act the petitioner says threatens the dignity and safety of the community. The petition claims that Udaipur Files violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard equality, protection from discrimination, and the right to a dignified life. It argues that artistic freedom cannot be used as a cover for spreading hate or polarizing society, warning that the film undermines India's secular values. The plea further objects to references in the film to unresolved legal disputes, such as the Gyanvapi Mosque case. It warns that dramatizing sensitive topics under litigation could be tantamount to contempt of court and fuel social unrest. The petition filed under Article 226 has also been lodged in the High Courts in Maharashtra and Gujarat. It names the Union Government, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), production houses and X Corps as parties to the case. The CBFC's decision to certify the film is being challenged as allegedly violating the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and related guidelines. Public Statements from Maulana Madani condemned the film as a calculated attempt to malign a religious community and weaken the nation's secular framework. He criticized the CBFC for allegedly failing its regulatory responsibilities and enabling divisive forces. He emphasised that the trailer includes deeply offensive content, especially relating to Prophet Muhammad and his wives, that mirrors previous controversies that sparked national and global outrage. Madani concluded by asserting that the right to free speech must not be misused to inflame religious sentiments. Legal steps, he stated, have been taken to hold both the film's creators and certifying authorities accountable. (ANI)
Time of India
29-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
BFC tightens control—e-Cinepramaan portal cuts off public access to certification data
The public can no longer access a website once widely used by journalists and filmmakers to verify film certifications and cuts. In May, the Central Board of Film Certification 's (CBFC) e-Cinepramaan portal went offline for 'maintenance.' However, it now appears that the changes are permanent, and public access has been blocked. When e-Cinepramaan was introduced in 2017, it simplified the process of checking which films had been certified, what cuts were requested, and whether a movie received an A, U, or U/A rating. The platform included QR codes that linked directly to each film's certificate. Since the primary CBFC website often lacked updated information, this feature proved extremely useful. But now, users can no longer search for or view film details on the revised version of the site, which has removed the QR code functionality as well. Industry voices call it a 'step backwards' The move is being widely criticized within the film industry. 'For years, we've been trying to build a case against arbitrary cuts,' said a director whose political film is currently awaiting CBFC approval. 'The fact that journalists and activists could cross-reference changes was a quiet deterrent [to the body]. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 21st Century Skills Start with Confident Communication Planet Spark Learn More Undo Now, that's gone. This might seem like a small tweak, but the message it sends is clear—they don't want us to see what's being cut. ' Under the Cinematograph Act of 1952, the CBFC is required to publish certificates for all films. With this update, many fear the little progress that had been made toward transparency in the certification process is being undone. One insider noted that public visibility has 'significantly decreased,' making it nearly impossible to track what is being removed and why. So far, the CBFC has not responded to questions regarding the rationale behind the portal's overhaul or whether a new version will be launched to comply with statutory requirements.
