The Delhi High Court on Friday grilled the Central government over its decision to order changes to Udaipur Files, a movie based on the murder of Rajasthan-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal.
Today, in response to the Court's queries on the exercise of its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma told the Court that the government decision may be set aside since he was unable to convince the Court.
However, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked him to formally seek instructions from the government. The matter will be taken up for further consideration at 2:30 PM.
Earlier, the Court asked the ASG under which provision of the Cinematograph Act it had ordered cuts to the movie. It was not convinced that the same could be done under Section 6, which allows the government to declare a film certified by the censor board to be uncertified and suspend its exhibition.
"Where did you derive this power...where is your authority to make a recommendation to the Board to revise? Is there any authority to available to you?" it asked ASG Sharma.
The Court was hearing the petitions challenging the movie release. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and one of the accused in Kanhaiya Lal murder case approached the Court, stating that the movie vilifies Muslims and would affect the right to fair trial.
Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor, was murdered by two assailants in June 2022 after he put up a WhatsApp status supporting BJP leader Nupur Sharma over certain controversial remarks she made on Prophet Muhammad. Udaipur Files was earlier scheduled for a July 11 release.
The High Court had earlier stayed the film's release and directed the Central government to exercise its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act to re-examine the movie.
This prompted the film's producers to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. The top court did not interfere with the High Court decision, following which a committee set up by Central government went ahead with examining the movie. The panel recommended the release of the movie with certain changes.
The Central government then asked the movie producers to implement the same. This has led to a fresh challenge before the High Court.
On July 30, the Court had asked the ASG to answer the argument that Central government, while exercising its revisional powers under Cinematograph Act, acted as an appellate board in the case by ordering changes in the movie.
In response to the query, ASG Sharma today referred to the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules. However, the Court pointed out that those rules to pertain to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its revising committee.
"Any reference to Rule 22, 23, 25 the manner in which revisional power is to be exercised is highly misplaced," the Court said.
ASG Sharma then argued that only CBFC can deal with such cases.
"Central government would become a repository to receive 2 Lakh revision petitions and they have apply their mind and pass an order. We will become third appellate authority, doing only this. It is Board is relegated with this. We will be inundated, flooded, crash," he said.
However, the Court asked whether it should then construe that the Central government has no revisional power. It added that the Centre could have said that there was no case for revision instead of ordering cuts.
"It was a direction not a suggestion. You are hereby "ordered". you considered and you ordered producer to take further action and act on the recommendation. Does it leave any discretion with them?"
In response, ASG Sharma said that the decision was taken in accordance with the court order for decision on revision pleas moved by the petitioners.
"If your lordships are putting me to law, then where is the mandamus that 'please see the film' after it has been certified, where is the statutory scheme which says the film will be viewed by counsel at 8 o'clock at night," he asked.
However, the Court reminded the ASG that the direction was issued under Article 226 and not under the Cinematograph Act.
"Therefore you cannot question the Court's direction for exhibition of the movie," it told the ASG.
"Law, rule, the statute, the procedure given under law are to be followed. They are not merely technical. Principles of natural justice are not merely technical. They are safeguards provided against arbitrariness at the hands of executive. That is the basic concern of the constitutional court. We are not concerned with film at all," it added.
Finally, the ASG said that the Central government would take a fresh call on the movie.
"Since I am making no headway...all the arguments I have tried to build up in vain, I can say that if this order does not appeal to your lordship conscience on the statutory aspect, then your lordships may be set it aside, relegate the matter once again to pass an appropriate order," Sharma said.
"Once court no, 1 presided by Chief Justice is "adamant" on saying "no no you are wrong...that is end of story"," he added.
However, the Court said there was no question of adamancy.
"This is not order of court 1 but High Court," it added.
The issue related to the re-examination of the movie had been raised by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represented Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.
During the last hearing, she said that the Central government's revisional powers under Section 6 are limited.
"The Central government cannot suggest cuts, modify dialogue, disclaimer, basically become film board like in this case. The Central government does not have the statutory power to become a master director of this film by saying 'remove certain dialog, remove certain disclaimers, use these words in the disclaimer, change the content of this, I'm going to make a few cuts and you release the film'," she added.