On July 24, the Supreme Court of India heard petitions linked to the controversial film "Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" and said it may direct the concerned parties to approach the Delhi High Court against the Centre’s approval of the movie after six key edits. The final decision on whether the stay on the movie's release will continue is expected on Friday.
The petitioners opposing the film’s release include Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohammad Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which is dealing with two key petitions — a writ petition by Javed and a Special Leave Petition filed by the film’s producers against the Delhi High Court’s earlier stay order.
“Free speech cannot be hate speech,” argued Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, referencing the Amish Devgan judgment.
The Central Government had earlier revised the CBFC certification, recommending six additional edits. These changes were made based on an expert committee’s suggestions and included:
- A detailed disclaimer clarifying the film’s artistic nature and denial of support to any violence.
- Changes to the credit titles.
- Replacement of an AI-generated scene showing a Saudi-style turban.
- Renaming of character “Nutan Sharma”.
- Deletion of a controversial dialogue by “Nutan Sharma”.
- Removal of a conversation between characters “Hafiz” and “Maqbool”.
While these edits were accepted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Sibal questioned the panel’s credibility, stating it included members from CBFC and BJP.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that the CBFC had already implemented 55 cuts, and the Centre’s six additional revisions were within legal limits.
“Don’t underestimate our judiciary. They won’t get swayed by a movie,” remarked Justice Surya Kant in response to concerns about the movie affecting Javed’s fair trial.
Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Javed, argued that allowing the film’s release may prejudice the trial. She cited the example of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to halt the release of a film based on the 1992 Bombay blasts. Guruswamy also stated that the Centre, under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, cannot suggest edits, only revoke certification. However, the bench disagreed with this interpretation.
Read also: Supreme Court Petition Seeks POSH Act Implementation for Political Parties
On the other side, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the producers (Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd), said that the film should now be released since the Centre’s revision process was completed. He insisted that Mohammad Javed was not even mentioned in the film and cited cases like Adarsh Housing Society and Padmavat to back the rights of filmmakers and freedom of expression.
The bench suggested that all parties may now approach the Delhi High Court if they wish to challenge the Centre's order, but Sibal and Guruswamy requested that the stay on the release be extended in the meantime to prevent the matter from becoming infructuous.
Background of the Case:
Kanhaiya Lal Teli, a tailor from Udaipur, was brutally murdered in June 2022 by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, allegedly in response to Lal’s support for former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's controversial remarks on the Prophet. The crime was widely condemned, and the National Investigation Agency took over the probe. Charges under UAPA and IPC were framed against the accused, and the case is currently on trial before the Special NIA Court in Jaipur.
The movie "Udaipur Files" is based on this incident. The Delhi High Court had stayed its release on July 10, allowing the petitioners to file a revision before the Centre. Later, on July 14 and 15, pleas were filed before the Supreme Court both by the movie makers and Mohammad Javed for urgent hearing.
On July 16, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter to await the Centre’s decision. Meanwhile, the Court also allowed the producer, director, and Kanhaiya Lal’s son — all claiming they received death threats — to seek protection from local police authorities.
Case Titles:
- Mohammad Javed vs Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 647/2025
- Jani Firefox Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Maulana Arshad Madani and Others, SLP(C) No. 18316/2025