The Delhi High Court today allowed the release of Udaipur Files, a movie based on the murder of Rajasthan-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal [Mohammed Javed v. Union of India and ors]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected a prayer made by an accused in the murder case, for a stay on the movie."The petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour. Producer has already spent life earnings in the film and if the movie is not released the balance of convenience will be disturbed.. The petitioner has failed to establish how irreparable loss will be caused to him if release is not stayed. Prayer for staying release is hereby rejected," the Court said in an interim order..The Court pronounced the judgment at 09:40 pm..Udaipur Files is based on the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 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. One of the men accused in the murder case, Mohammed Javed, challenged the August 6 decision of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to allow the movie's release without any further cuts. "The film is alleged to be based on real events/Chargesheet. However, the contents of the chargesheet have not yet been proven ... the trailer and promotional material of the said film contain content that is provocative and communally sensitive, which has the potential to disturb the religious harmony of the country and interfere with the ongoing judicial proceedings," said the plea filed through Advocate Pyoli..Javed is seeking quashing of the August 6 order passed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and also quashing of the certification granted to the film. The petition states that MIB mechanically dismissed the revision petition without applying its mind and providing any reasoned analysis for its rejection..Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for Javed today and asserted that the film's release would affect his right to a fair trial."If precedent is created in this manner then he would never get a chance to fair trial. If this is allowed, fair trial will die ... I (Javed) am accused no. 8. I have come to court on right to fair trial. It is called Kanhaiya Lal tailor story. Witnesses remain to be examined. Dialogues have been lifted from the chargesheet. When accused comes to court, there is not a court in this country that allowed release," she argued. The Court, in turn, asked the senior lawyer if there were any direct references to her client in the movie. Guruswamy replied that there were enough references to prejudice Javed's right to a fair trial. "Just because they don't use my name (should relief be denied)? My role, the place where I speak - identically, the dialogue is lifted from chargesheet and used in the film. Please watch the film," she said. .The film's producers, represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, meanwhile questioned why the film's release was opposed at the last minute."Why did they not file earlier? Are they being so casual? It was filed right before release," he said.Bhatia added that the movie has a positive message and refuted allegations that it vilifies any community."This is a movie based on the crime. It is not an exact narration, or that we have taken dialogue by dialogue. There is a positive message to society. It gives positive right to express itself for social harmony ... Message of the movie is positive. Not vilifying anyone," he submitted.In response to a query by the Court, Bhatia also said that a disclaimer has also been added to the movie to allay any remaining concerns."A new certificate has been issued. The idea is not to vilify any community," he added."If the movie is released tomorrow, this will have 55 cuts (ordered by the CBFC earlier before the case came to court) plus 6 cuts and this disclaimer?" the Court asked, in turn."Yes. I have watched the movie," Bhatia replied..The film was initially scheduled for a July 11 release. However, a petition was filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, raising concerns that the movie vilifies the Muslim community. Javed also had then approached the Court, stating that his right to a fair trial would be affected.The High Court on July 10 passed an interim order on these petitions staying the film's release.This prompted the film's producers to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal.The top court did not interfere with the High Court decision, following which a committee set up by the Central government pursuant to the High Court's earlier order went ahead with re-examining the movie.The government panel recommended the release of the movie with certain changes. The Central government then asked the movie producers to implement the same. This led to a fresh challenge before the High Court.In the ensuing hearing, the Court questioned the Central government's power to order such additional cuts in the movie. It asked the Central government to re-examine the matter after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma said that the ministry will withdraw an earlier order for cuts in the movie and take a fresh decision.Since the movie's makers wished to release the film on August 8, the Court also directed the Centre to take a call on the issue by August 6. Yesterday, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting cleared the film for release, which was challenged before the High Court today. .Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy with Advocates Pyoli, Ejaz M Qureshi, Saumya Dwivedi, Animesh Rajoriya, Shaswati Parhi, Bhumika Yadav, Arunima Das and Kashish Jain appeared for Mohd Javed.ASG Chetan Sharma with advocates Amit Tiwari, Amit Gupta, Avshreya Pratap Singh, R.V.Prabhat, Vinay Yadav, Ayush Tanwar, Ayushi Srivastava, Naman and Shivam Sachdeva appeared for the Union of India.Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia with advocates Pulkit Agarwal, Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Neelmani Guha, Anubhav Lamba, M.D. Anas Chaudhary, Vaibhav Dabas, Vikas Tiwari, Shubh Sharma and Sudhanshu Kumar appeared for the producers. [Read judgment].[Live Coverage]
