Udaipur Files movie is about a crime, not against any community: Central government to Supreme Court

The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the movie Udaipur Files is about a particular crime and not against any particular community.

Representing the Central government, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that the film is crime-specific and does not vilify any community.

"These accused are the persons who themselves posted on Facebook that they cut his throat. The film is crime-focused and not community-targeted. Dialogues are generic. Terrorism references are context specific. Themes do not threaten any foreign relations. Screening was held before committee. Committee also invited the Ministry of External Affairs for its recommendations. 55 cuts as mandated by CBFC were implemented. The film does not vilify any community. All characters depicted are fictional composites," he said.

The Court was hearing pleas filed both for and against the release of the movie.

The petitioners who have challenged the release of the movie are Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case on which the film is based.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President, argued today that movie has been made in a way that it spews venom against the Muslim community.

Hate speech is not part of free speech, he said.

"The whole movie is that. Everything about this movie spews venom against a community that is targeted," he contended

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represents Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in Kanhaiya Lal murder case on which the film is based, flagged that the movie may affect her client's right to a fair trial.

The Court, however, highlighted that judges are trained not to let public opinions, media trials or films based on real-life crimes affect their decisions.

"Dr. Menaka don’t underestimate our judicial officers. We will not be able to hold court a single day if we are affected by comments made against us. It is a part of judicial training. A judicial officer is duty bound that he has to decide the case strictly based on the evidence available," Justice Kant replied.

"But the society is prejudiced," Guruswamy said.

"Society will always be like this. The judiciary must remain unaffected by all this nonsense. Most of us don’t read the newspaper in the morning. We never care about it," Justice Kant remarked.

"When there has been an active trial underway, the movie has to be withheld till the judgement is pronounced. The producer says it is crime specific. It is a crime that I am accused of. It will be released in 1,800 movie halls," Guruswamy maintained.

The Court, however, replied,

"Somebody can write novel, story, make a movie, if everything is to be seen that somebody is being identified or connected with that it will create a lot of confusion. It is the right or the society to watch or not watch the movie. Your right can also be safeguarded by permitting people to watch a movie if their choice. You have a right to challenge a revisional decision."

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who represented the film's producers, protested the delays in allowing the film's release.

"The law states that CBFC gave me certificate valid in law. Committee held in my favour. Still my movie is not being released. Javed is not even one of the persons mentioned in the movie! He has given a false affidavit before the Supreme Court. His age is somewhere 19 somewhere 22. Media trial and trial, will it be affected by the release of the movie? It is based on a real incident. What is the locus of these people? The accused who is being represented by Menaka Ji is not even mentioned in the movie. Some radical elements go to the extent of murdering a person for expressing his right. That’s what the movie portrays. My investment here is at stake. I have waited for so many days," he argued.

"You have rightly waited because that’s what the law contemplates ... The issue is should the interim stay continue?" Justice Kant replied.

He went on to ask how long if would take for the film's makers to carry out certain changes suggested by a Central government panel in a recent report that had been placed before the top court.

"The edits have been made. They have to grant me a certification after the edits are done and they are satisfied," Bhatia replied.

The Court said it will continue hearing the matter tomorrow.

"We will take another 10-15 mins and finish the matter. His SLP has become infructuous. Mr. Sibal, you have the right to amend the your petition and challenge. You can challenge the order. Ask for your relief before the High Court," Justice Kant said.

The film in focus before the Court is based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur. 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.

The murder was also filmed and clips of the same were circulated on social media.

Udaipur Files, which is said to be based on these events, was earlier scheduled for a July 11 release.

However, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President President Maulana Arshad Madani moved a plea before the Delhi High Court to ban the movie on concerns that it vilifies the Muslim community.

The High Court recently stayed the film's release so that the Central government could 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. A writ petition was also 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 Supreme Court had earlier asked the Centre's panel to expedite its decision in the matter while refusing to lift the High Court's earlier stay order which had stalled the July 11 release of the film.

The Central government panel then recommended more changes to the movie.

However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (Madani's counsel) has maintained that the suggested changes were not enough to allow the film's release.

Today, Sibal also questioned whether the Central government panel's members were neutral enough to decide on the matter.

"They are the same people (as in the CBFC which cleared the film for release earlier). This is the first time we are seeing this. When Central government is hearing the revision, why should they nominate members of the CBFC? Central government is a revisional authority. These are members of the CBFC. They are all part of the same organisation," Sibal said.

"But they are advisory panel members," Justice Kant pointed out.

"We will have to see what is this panel, what is the constitution. The HC allowed us to see it. We raised objections. In the revision, they make some other cuts. Our basic objections were not dealt with. They themselves have disclosed that they are members of a political party," Sibal replied.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

[Live Coverage]