Supreme Court declines to lift stay on Udaipur Files movie, asks Central govt panel to expedite decision

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to immediately lift the Delhi High Court-ordered stay on Udaipur Files, the movie based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi said the Central government can go ahead with examining the movie as directed by the High Court.

"We will keep the matter pending. We can have benefit of view of Union of India before the HC. Suppose union says nothing wrong then we will see that. If they make some cuts then also we can peruse the same. If centre was not taking up the matter, then different . We are told committee has been formed and union is looking into it..we can wait for a day or two," the Court said.

It further ordered that the Committee constituted to decide the objections to the movie must take an immediate call on the issue.

"We expect that committee will decide the revision plea immediately without any loss of time. Post the matter for further consideration on July 21," the Court ordered.

The top court noted that the High Court had not made any comments on the contents of the movie but only relegated the petitioner before it to avail a remedy before the Central government.

It added that the Central government is empowered to issue interim measures to suspend a movie exhibition. Further, the Court noted that the Committee is scheduled to examine the movie today.

"In such situation, we deem it appropriate to defer the hearing and await the outcome of proceedings pending before the Central government," the apex court said.

It also permitted one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case to be represented before the Committee.

The Court was hearing two petitions - one, an appeal filed by the producers of the movie against the Delhi High Court order to stay the release of the movie and another, a writ petition filed by one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case claiming that his right to fair trial would be prejudiced if the movie is released.

The producers of the movie approached the top Court after the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the movie on July 10 and ordered the Central government to exercise its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act to examine the movie.

The High Court order was passed on a batch of three petitions including one filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani seeking a ban on the movie based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur, for vilifying Muslims.

The movie was slated to be released on July 11.

Earlier, the CBFC had told the High Court that certain offending portions in the movie have been removed. The Court had then directed the producer to arrange a screening of the movie and the trailer for the counsel appearing in the matter - Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for Madani and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma for CBFC.

A day after screening of the movie, Sibal told the High Court that he was appalled after watching the movie.

"This is not right for the country. This is not art. This is cinematic vandalism," Sibal had told the High Court.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the film producers, today argued before the apex court that they have a valid censor certificate from the CBFC.

"My movie was to be released after 12 hours. The movie was with 800 distributors. Now it is about piracy issues. If they decide by tomorrow to at least exhibit the movie. This is a reasonable request," Bhatia said.

Bhatia also argued for fundamental rights of the movie producers. At this, the top court said it cannot deal with the matter at this stage in view of the High Court order.

"We see these fundamental rights issue everyday. If it is released then both petitions are infructuous. Plea before centre and this plea by accused goes. If statute gives a right and that right is availed. High Court has only relegated the parties to the remedy in the statute," the Court remarked.

However, the Court also said a decision on the movie must be made expeditiously.

"Yes it must be decided quickly. But it is unfair that hearing will be at 2:30 pm by the authorities and we tell them to evaluate allegations and counter allegations and deliver judgment by tomorrow. That will be unreasonable. HC has not passed order on merits..it is only on the statutory scheme," it remarked.

The Court added that the release of the movie could cause irreparable damage but the impact of the delay in its release can be compensated.

“If the movie is released.. there will be irreparable damage. If it not then you can be compensated. Also don't miss movie culture. More the suspense the more better it does,” it said. 

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, said free speech cannot be claimed to violate the right to fair trial.

“We also approached the authorities.. but we did not receive the notice. This is about trial of the accused in the murder case and also Gyanvapi. Both are sub judice matters. It is also about showing judiciary in irresponsible way. 100 witnesses are remained to be examined.. free speech cannot be claimed to violate fair trial and irresponsible free speech to lower the judiciary's moral strength,” Guruswamy said.

At this, the Court remarked that judicial officers would not be swayed by a movie.

“Prima facie we are clear: Our judicial officers are not school-going children who will be swayed by movie or dialogues of movie. We are confident of their objectivity and the sense of attachment. Given regard to their training. But parties need to be heard,” Justice Kant remarked. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Madani, submitted that the movie was against a community and he was shaken when he watched it.

“Once I saw the movie. I was shaken. It was a complete thematic dissertation against a community. I am usually for free speech but here the case is different. This is a movie which seeks and generates violence. It is a complete vilification of entire community.. violence, homosexuality, child abuse everything about the community.. it is unthinkable that a democracy will allow such a movie to be shown,” Sibal said. 

Meanwhile, the Court was told that the movie producer, director and the son of Teli had received threats in relation to the movie. The Court asked them to make a representation to the police.

“If merit is found in the same .. necessary steps be taken to avoid any harm or injury to the concerned persons,” the Court ordered.

[Read Order]