Facts
The movie ‘Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder’ was released on July 11, 2025. The movie is based on the real-life case of Rajasthan-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, who was brutally killed in 2022 for supporting a controversial social media post of a political leader. The film’s release created fear among various groups, and petitions were made under the Delhi High Court. Petitioners Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and journalist Prashant Tandon sought to oppose the CBFC certification of the movie on the grounds that its subject matter would cause communal disharmony and lower public order. Interestingly, the CBFC had already insisted on 55 cuts to the film, including the excision of mentions of Deoband and a TV debate with a political figurehead, prior to certifying it. The Delhi High Court on July 10, 2025, issued an interim stay on the release of the film, instructing the petitioners to approach the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which gives the Centre the jurisdiction to revisit CBFC orders.
Rationale
The rationale for the Court’s order rested on the principle that remedies provided by a statute must first be exhausted before resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts. The court observed that although the High Court could entertain its writ jurisdiction in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, the Cinematograph Act, 1952, lays down a specific procedure for challenging CBFC decisions. Since the petitioners hadn’t approached the Central Government till now to request a revision of the CBFC certificate, the Court ordered them to do so within two days. The Court also requested the Centre to end the problem within a week after listening to the producer of the movie. Such a strategy was intended to maintain the legislative process alongside safeguarding the public interest, keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the topic matter of the film.
Important Arguments
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Petitioner’s lead counsel Kapil Sibal described the film as “vicious” and “cinematic vandalism”, contending that its release would be likely to engender communal tensions and would jeopardize the accused’s right to a fair trial in the ongoing criminal case. The petitioners asserted that despite the ordered cuts by the CBFC, the film and trailer content continued to be prone to instigating communal sentiments, pointing to previous cases where such portrayal led to unrest. The film producer contended otherwise, asserting that the film was crime-oriented and not community-oriented, pointing out that the 55 cuts ordered by the CBFC were a testimony to regulatory stringency. They also contended that the film had already been certified by a competent authority, and that courts generally declined to grant stays on release of certified films, in order to defer to the authority of the CBFC.
Judgment of the Court
The Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal, had granted an interim stay on the release of ‘Udaipur Files’ pending the Central Government’s decision on the revision application of the petitioners against the CBFC certification. The Court added that since the petitioners were being made to invoke the revisional remedy, the stay on the release of the film would remain in place until the government decided on their application for interim relief. The Court clarified that if the petitioners approach the Centre in a revision petition, the government will be obligated to consider the same within seven days, after hearing both sides, including the filmmaker of the film.
This ruling reflects the judiciary’s deference towards statutory redressals and the compulsion to follow the procedures entrenched in special laws like the Cinematograph Act. By directing the petitioners to approach the Central Government first, the Court asserted that the executive, in the form of the CBFC and the Centre’s revisional power, is the primary power of control over film content. The case also evokes the thin line between freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and reasonable restriction that may be imposed in the interest of public order under Article 19(2). The Court’s stay of release is a calibrated response, prioritizing communal harmony and public order over instant artistic freedom, especially in the context of the sensitive nature of the subject. Moreover, the ruling sets a precedent for cases of movies on sensitive topics and makes it amply clear that petitioners must utilize statutory remedies first before approaching the courts for relief.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s interim order has practically halted the release of ‘Udaipur Files’ until the Central Government decides on the petitioner’s revision petition. Although the CBFC had granted clearance to the film after making large cuts, High Court’s stay is evidence of judicial awareness towards the larger social implications of objectionable content in the media. The matter is now with the Central Government, which must make a decision within a week regarding issuing permission for releasing the film, following the hearing of all the concerned parties. This case serves as a helpful reminder of the need to balance freedom of expression and the need to maintain public order, and of respect for statutory procedure before recourse is had to the courts.
Sources
- The Hindu, ‘Delhi HC stays release of “Udaipur Files”’ (The Hindu, 10 July 2025) https://www.thehindu.com
- Bar & Bench, ‘Delhi HC directs Centre to decide on release of “Udaipur Files”’ (Bar and Bench, 10 July 2025)
- Times of India, ‘Udaipur Files: HC orders interim stay, asks petitioners to move Centre’ (TOI, 10 July 2025)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
- India Today, ‘Communal disharmony feared, Delhi HC halts Udaipur Files release’ (India Today, 10 July 2025)
