During a crucial Supreme Court hearing on July 17, 2025, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly opposed the release of the film ‘Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder’, alleging that it spreads hate and vilifies an entire religious community.
The matter was heard by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, who decided to adjourn the case until the Central Government makes a decision on a revision petition against the movie’s certification.
Read also: CSR Fund Scam: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Exclusion of Retired Kerala HC Judge from FIR
Sibal, representing Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, informed the bench that he personally watched the film after the Delhi High Court allowed a private screening to verify if the 55 cuts ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had removed objectionable content. However, he found the revised version equally problematic.
“When the High Court asked us to see the movie, I personally saw it. Once I saw the movie, I was shaken in every sense of the word,”– Kapil Sibal told the bench.
According to Sibal, the movie promotes a communal narrative, portraying an entire community in an extremely negative light. He claimed the film is filled with scenes of violence, hate, child abuse, denigration of women, and even judicial matters, without showing a single positive aspect of the community being targeted.
Read also: Supreme Court Awaits Centre's Decision on 'Udaipur Files'; Balance in Favour of Objectors
“It is something that generates violence. It seeds violence. It’s vilification of an entire community. Not one positive aspect about the community is projected in the movie... It is unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow this kind of movie to be certified,”– Kapil Sibal stated.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the film producer, argued that the film is based on a real-life incident—the brutal murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur—and is not aimed against any religion or community. Bhatia emphasized that the film attempts to expose radical elements and portray the trauma faced by victims’ families.
Sibal countered that argument, reiterating that the film paints the entire Muslim community in a negative light, which makes it dangerous and unacceptable in a secular and democratic country like India.
Supporting this stance, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, also pointed out the film’s portrayal of judicial proceedings, further strengthening the objections raised.
Read also: Supreme Court Refers Power of Attorney Registration Matter to Larger Bench: Question on
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter again after the Centre decides on the pending revision plea regarding the movie's CBFC certification.
Case Details:
- MOHAMMED JAVED vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., W.P.(C) No. 647/2025
- JANI FIREFOX MEDIA PVT. LTD. vs. MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI & ORS., SLP(C) No. 18316/2025