Udaipur Files movie row: Centre withdraws order for cuts after Delhi HC questions its power

The case pertained to the pleas filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed (one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case) objecting to the film's release.

In the previous hearing, the court had questioned the Central government if it had the authority to pass the kind of order it did to direct to have six cuts to the film while exercising revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

"You have to exercise the powers within the four corners of the statute. You can't go beyond that," a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said on Wednesday, seeking to know from the Centre whether it had the authority to pass the order directing six cuts in the film while exercising its revisional powers.

The court posed the question on being informed that the Centre, while exercising its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, had suggested six cuts to the producers of the movie in addition to a disclaimer.

It was also informed that though the film has been recertified, it has not been issued to the producers because the matter is pending in the high court.

The petitioner's counsel contended before the court that the central government had exercised its revisional powers in a manner that contravenes the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act.

"The nature of order you passed, you said, effect six cuts, etc, whether this authority is available under the statute? "In the earlier round, this court has noticed the change of the provision of Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, as it existed then and now," the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, who was representing the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

The court was hearing a plea by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the tailor Kanhaiya Lal murder case, objecting to the release of the film on the ground that it would prejudice his case during the trial.

"The (July 10) order was to decide the revision petition under Section 6. There was no order to the producer or to the board (to make cuts).

"See the earlier order, the court notices the changes in law. Earlier and existing provisions and the changes were noticed. It was noticed clearly what kind of orders can be passed under Section 6... It was a statutory remedy to which the petitioners were relegated. You have to exercise the powers within the four corners of the statute. You can't go beyond that," the bench said.

Section 6 of the Act grants the central government revisional powers over film certification.

Sharma submitted that the film has undergone a two-step filter, first by the censor board, which suggested 55 cuts, and second by the committee, which further asked for six cuts, making a total of 61 cuts.

"There is a body of experts and so it happens in this case that it has undergone a two-stage filter test -- first by the board which suggested 55 cuts. All those cuts were those which had purported generic overtones," he said.

Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, representing Javed, submitted that till now six witnesses have been examined in the case and 160 witnesses remain.

"I was 19 years old when I was arrested. I am Accused No. 8 in the trial. I was released on bail by the Rajasthan High Court because there was no connection between me and the allegations. I am a citizen of this country and am entitled to a fair trial.

"My right to a fair trial is jeopardised by the release of the film. This is the first proposition. The promise of Article 21 of the Constitution, right to fair trial, is an essential component of what it means to be a citizen in this country," she argued.

The senior counsel said the film producer has expressly said that the film is based on the case chargesheet and even the dialogues have been lifted directly from the chargesheet.

She contended that the central government has exercised its revisional powers in a manner that contravenes the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act.

Referring to the relevant law, Guruswamy said there are three kinds of revisional powers that can be exercised by the Centre -- the government can say that the film cannot be broadcast; they can change the certification or they can suspend it.

"What it cannot do is what it has done here, which is to suggest cuts, remove dialogues, add disclaimers, modify disclaimers like the sensor board. It cannot do," she contended.

While Guruswamy concluded her arguments, the submissions of Sharma remained inconclusive and the court would continue the proceedings on August 1.

Besides Javed's plea, another petition has been filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani. It could not be heard due to the non-availability of the counsel.

Two petitions related to the movie came before the high court following a Supreme Court direction.

The top court directed the petitioners to move the high court against the Centre’s revisional order of giving nod for the film's release.

The producers of the film had moved the top court after a high court bench previously stayed the film's release.

The apex court on July 25 said the film-makers' appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous as they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer.

Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed.

The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the IPC.

The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.