Did Central government act beyond its powers to order changes in Udaipur Files? Delhi High Court to examine

The Delhi High Court is set to examine whether the Central government acted beyond its powers by ordering changes to Udaipur Files, a movie based on the murder of Rajasthan-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela today asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma to answer the argument that Central government, while exercising its revisional powers under Cinematograph Act, acted as an appellate board in the case.

"This is very important. The nature of order that can be passed by you has been enumerated [in law]. The order you have passed falls in which sub-clause? This power of making changes as it deems fit is not there," Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked.

The Court added that the Central government has to exercise the revisional power within the four corners of the law and that the earlier court order did not ask it to decide some representation but exercise a statutory power under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

"You cannot go beyond that. You are not exercising your general administrative powers," it further said.

Though the Court even went on to remark Centre seemed to have acted as appellate authority by ordering cuts in the movie, ASG Sharma said Central government had abided by the Court order and also decided in accordance with Section 6.

Section 6 allows the government to declare a film certified by the censor board to be uncertified and suspends its exhibition.

The hearing on this aspect will continue on August 1, Friday.

The issue related to the re-examination of the movie was raised by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represented Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.

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.

The Court was hearing the petitions challenging the movie release. Besides Javed, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani has also approached the Court stating that the movie vilifies Muslims.

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 Mohammad. Udaipur Files was earlier scheduled for a July 11 release.

Days before the release, Madani moved a plea before the High Court seeking a ban of the movie on the ground that it vilifies the Muslim community.

The High Court then 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 setup by Central government went ahead with examining the movie. The panel recommended release of the movie with certain changes. This has led to a fresh challenge before the High Court.

Today, Guruswamy, representing Javed, submitted that the movie was filled with hate speech.

"There are grave consequences of hate speech. At the heart of it is not just rights to accused is but how we hold ourselves as constitutional democracy whose constitution speaks to fraternity," she added.

Guruswamy added that Javed's right to fair trial would be jeopardized by the release of the movie.

"160 witnesses remain to be examined. I am entitled to fair trial under Article 21. First proposition is my right to fair trial is jeopardized by the release of this movie," Guruswamy argued.

She added that the movie contains a dialogue lifted directly from the chargesheet.

She contended that Central government decision to allow the movie release was not correct.

"Central government has exercised in its revisional power that contravenes the statutory scheme prescribed under the Cinematograph Act," she argued.

Guruswamy further contended that the threshold of prejudice is always the person with ordinary prudence.

"I am a young man living with my family out on bail. When you make a movie based exclusively on crime and chargesheet and dialogue is lifted from the chargesheet, is it expecting too much from all the actors? ... Are we expecting every citizen, every judge, every court master, every witness, to be unreasonably prudent? That is my question, and my submission is yes, we are expecting too much, and that is not what the law expects from any of us," she submitted.

She also submitted that the film producers were claiming that Udaipur Files was a true story.

"They are not speaking to fiction. They are saying to Your Lordships, to this country, to the 160 witnesses who remain to be examined, to the court staff, to lawyers, to my neighbours, that "I (Javed) have committed this crime and I am guilty of it," Guruswamy said.

ASG Sharma defended the decision of the Central government to allow release of the movie.

"Subjective satisfactions of people don't guide courts. These are your subjective satisfactions, you may be pandering to something we can't say. The legal presumption exists once a certificate is granted," Sharma submitted.

Sharma also submitted that the panel, which re-examined the movie, comprised of senior government officers.

"The three members from the advisory panel were not in any manner associated with the movie in the earlier round of certification, but are senior government officials," he said.

Sharma also submitted that though the matter has already finality, a fresh certificate has not been issued to the producer for the movie release due to pendency of the case.