Sr Adv Menaka Guruswamy argues in Delhi High Court that Udaipur Files prejudices the ongoing trial under Article 21. Court questions Centre’s powers under Cinematograph Act after 2023 amendment.
New Delhi: On July 30, the Delhi High Court heard a petition filed by Mohd Javed against the release of the film ‘Udaipur Files’. The matter is being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared on behalf of Javed and argued that the release of the film could seriously affect his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She submitted that the case is still at a very early stage of trial, with only a few witnesses examined out of the total.
In a heated hearing before the Delhi High Court, serious questions were raised about the extent of the Central Government’s powers under the Cinematograph Act for the controversial film Udaipur Files. Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, addressing Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, remarked,
“This is very important. The nature of order that can be passed by you has been enumerated. The order you have passed falls in which sub-clause? This power of making changes as it deems fit is not there,”
further adding,
“You cannot go beyond that. You are not exercising your general administrative powers.”
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy launched a strong critique of the Centre’s intervention in the film’s release, stating,
“The Central government cannot suggest cuts, modify dialogue, disclaimer, basically become film board like in this case. The Central government does not have the statutory power to become a master director of this film.”
She argued that such actions disturb the balance between creative freedom and executive oversight and are not legally tenable under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.
She further emphasized the grave constitutional implications of permitting such films to be released while trials are still ongoing.
“There are grave consequences of hate speech. At the heart of it is not just rights to accused but how we hold ourselves as a constitutional democracy whose constitution speaks to fraternity,”
she said, adding that the film essentially pronounces guilt even before the court has rendered its verdict.
“They are not speaking to fiction. They are saying to Your Lordships, to this country, to the 160 witnesses who remain to be examined, to the court staff, to lawyers, to my neighbours, that ‘I (Javed) have committed this crime and I am guilty of it’.”
She questioned whether it was realistic to expect citizens to ignore such depictions while the judicial process is ongoing.
“Are we expecting every citizen, every judge, every court master, every witness, to be unreasonably prudent? That is my question, and my submission is yes, we are expecting too much, and that is not what the law expects from any of us.”
Responding for the Centre, ASG Chetan Sharma defended the legality of the Centre’s actions, asserting,
“Subjective satisfactions of people don’t guide courts.”
He argued that once a CBFC certificate is granted, a legal presumption exists in its favour, and reiterated that the advisory panel members involved in the revisional process were neutral and unaffiliated with the earlier certification process.
“160 witnesses remain to be examined. My right to fair trial under Art 21 is jeopardised by this movie’s release.”
She said the right to a fair trial is not just a procedural formality, but an essential part of the Indian constitutional framework.
“It is an essential component of what it means to be an Indian.”
She also pointed out that a dialogue in the film is directly taken from the chargesheet filed in the case, which could influence public perception and prejudice the trial.
“Here, the filmmakers themselves say it is a true story. They are telling this country, the 160 witnesses yet to be examined, the court staff, the lawyers, and my neighbours that the accused has committed this crime and is guilty.”
Raising the issue of government overreach, Guruswamy challenged the Central Government’s revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, stating that such actions went against the legal structure.
She claimed that by suggesting or implementing cuts, modifying dialogues, and altering disclaimers, the government had acted beyond its authority.
She further alleged contempt of court, arguing that the movie could influence not only the public and the accused but also witnesses and even the court proceedings.
“It is an essential component of what it means to be an Indian.”
At this stage, the Bench made a significant observation:
“We also have a right to see or not see the movie, unless you persuade us otherwise.”
The Court agreed that the right to a fair trial is fundamental and intrinsic, and asked Guruswamy to explain her contentions more clearly regarding contempt of court.
Guruswamy then discussed Articles 19 and 21, emphasising that the right to freedom of speech and expression must be balanced with the rights of those accused in criminal trials.
She stated that the film was based specifically on a crime that is still under trial and brought up a Kerala High Court ruling to support her point that the threshold for determining prejudice must be understood through the lens of an average, reasonable viewer.
“I am a young man living with my family out on bail. When you make a movie based exclusively on crime and chargesheet and a dialogue is lifted from the chargesheet, is it expecting too much from all the actors? Is it expecting too much from all the actors?”
She questioned whether the law expects people involved in the case—be it the judge, the witnesses, or even the accused’s neighbours—to be so prudent that their views won’t be influenced by a widely released movie.
“Such an expectation is unfair and contrary to legal principles.”
She highlighted a relevant precedent where the Kerala High Court held that even fictional films, if closely based on real and pending criminal matters, must not be released due to their potential impact on an ongoing trial.
She referred to a similar situation in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, where the Madras High Court had itself watched a film before allowing its release, after carefully considering its effect on the trial and the audience.
“They are telling this country… that the accused has committed this crime and is guilty.”
Guruswamy also brought up the Bombay High Court’s ruling in the Black Friday movie case and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amish Devgan’s hate speech matter to strengthen her arguments.
While addressing the legality of the Central Government’s powers, she pointed to Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act and argued that the government no longer had broad powers to interfere once the film is certified.
“Subsection 1 had been repealed in 2023.”
“The Central Government has no authority to act like a film certification board by suggesting cuts, modifying dialogues, altering disclaimers, or making edits before permitting the release.”
“Where such power was ever intended by the legislature?”
She further asserted that the government’s intervention undermined not only the accused’s fair trial but also the credibility of the justice system and constitutional democracy.
“The release of the movie has serious implications not only for the accused’s fair trial but also for the justice system and the credibility of constitutional democracy.”
Chief Justice Upadhyaya referred to a 2021 Supreme Court judgment by Justice DY Chandrachud, which held that a certified film is presumed legally fit for public viewing and courts must be cautious before interfering.
He asked what legal tests could justify the Court’s interference.
Guruswamy responded that the case cited by the Chief Justice was about a government ban, not a situation where a film interfered with an ongoing criminal trial.
“Courts have always intervened when a film threatens the fairness of an active criminal case.”
The Court turned to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma for the government’s response. Sharma argued that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already made significant cuts to the film.
He claimed the current situation is distinguishable from previous Supreme Court cases, including Mohd Musa. He said that the character of Javed is not shown directly and factual deviations prevent direct application of legal precedents.
Sharma stated:
“Subjective perceptions cannot guide the Court and that a legal presumption arises once a film is certified.”
He added that the advisory panel which recommended cuts included senior government officials and experts, and they also recommended a stronger disclaimer.
“The test is that of an ordinary prudent person.”
“The appellate tribunal’s decision, as a quasi-judicial body, should be final.”
Sharma warned that allowing challenges based on personal interpretations could lead to legal chaos.
“Interfering with certification would risk anarchy and undermine free speech.”
“Artists can depict incidents and present their version of social reality.”
“Isolating parts of a film cannot be grounds for banning it, as Article 19 protections cannot be overridden by subjective views.”
The Court noted that the government had not clearly explained how it had used revisional powers under Section 6, and whether it acted within legal boundaries.
“The order and the way it was exercised do not align with Section 6.”
The Bench asked under which specific sub-clause the Centre’s order fell, since after the 2023 amendment, powers are now limited to just three kinds of directions.
“The power to make changes as it deems fit no longer exists.”
“That order you have passed falls in which sub clause?”
The ASG tried to justify the order by saying it was issued as per a previous Supreme Court directive.
To which the CJI replied:
“There was no such order.”
The Court emphasised:
“It was a statutory remedy they were relegated to, not their representation. Powers must be exercised within the four corners of the law. You cannot go beyond that, nor rely on general administrative powers.”
The Bench has listed the matter for further hearing on Friday, August 1, 2025.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the film “Udaipur Files”, which is based on the real-life murder of Kanhaiya Lal Teli that took place in June 2022 in Udaipur, Rajasthan. Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor, was brutally killed in broad daylight by two assailants who claimed they were avenging a social media post that supported comments made about the Prophet.
The murder shocked the nation and was widely seen as an act of religious extremism.
Following the incident, multiple individuals were arrested and charges were filed under terrorism laws. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe.
While the criminal trial is still ongoing, the film “Udaipur Files” was announced, which aims to portray the events surrounding the murder and its aftermath.
Objections were raised by some of the accused and activists, arguing that the film might influence public perception, damage communal harmony, and most importantly, prejudice the fair trial rights of those accused in the murder case.
A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court, which led to a temporary stay on the film’s release. The film’s producer later challenged this stay order in the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, concerns were also raised about the certification process of the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), with allegations of political bias in the committee and questions on whether the Centre had the authority to suggest cuts.
Case Title:
(1) MOHAMMED JAVED Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 647/2025
(2) JANI FIREFOX MEDIA PVT. LTD v. MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI AND ORS, SLP(C) No. 18316/2025
(3) SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL Versus MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI AND ORS., Diary No. 38697-2025
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tailor Kanhaiya Lal
