In a significant development in the matter with regard to response of the Centre, 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 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.The film does not vilify any community. All characters depicted are fictional composites.
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. Everything about this movie spews venom against a community.
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.
"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," Meenakshi Guruswamy representing one of the accused maintained.
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 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.
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.
The Central government panel then recommended more changes to the movie. Today, Sibal also questioned whether the Central government panel's members were neutral enough to decide on the matter."But they are advisory panel members," Justice Kant pointed out. The hearing will continue tomorrow.
Follow us
