Today, On 1st August, Udaipur Files row reached Delhi High Court, which questioned the Centre’s authority under the Cinematograph Act. “What made you suggest cuts?” the Chief Justice asked, slamming post-certification interference despite CBFC’s expert scrutiny and legal process.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court continued hearing a case on whether the Central Government exceeded its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act while issuing directions to a film producer even after the movie had been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
A bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma began by responding to the question raised in the last hearing regarding the extent of the Centre’s revisional authority. He referred to the provisions in the Cinematograph Rules.
The ASG told the Court,
“What has the government even done, I have kept a distance, we have not said anything. Have we circumvented jurisdiction, have we transgressed jurisdiction?”
However, Chief Justice immediately pointed out that the direction issued by the Centre could not be covered under Section 5(2) of the Act.
He said,
“Can you cover the order under subsection 2 of section 5, or referable to powers under this? Perhaps no.”
The Court then read out Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act which allows the Central Government to issue directions specifying the principles that will guide the CBFC while granting certificates. The judges observed that this provision does not appear to empower the Centre to interfere with the CBFC’s decision after certification.
The Bench remarked,
“Central Government here is acting as a statutory authority. Central Government is a statutory authority, which is a creation of the parliament.”
The Chief Justice questioned the nature and legality of the order issued by the Centre,
“What authority is available to you to pass such an order? What did you do? You made direction over and above the CBFC. This why Section 6(1) was deleted. Centre has to come to the aid of the Board. See Rule 22, 23 also.”
He also noted,
“Any reference to Rule 22, 23, 25, the manner in which revisional power is to be exercised is highly misplaced.”
The Bench, said,
“The sections are referring to Board. You have to only decide one of the three. You have not taken a decision, you have given an advisory.”
The Chief Justice pointed out that although the Centre heard the parties, the real issue remained unresolved.
He said,
“We appreciate that you heard the parties, but the question still remains. You could have simply said nothing needs to be done, matter would not have come. You could have done something under provisions from Section 6(2) a, b or c. You could have rejected.”
He further stated,
“It gives nature of the powers. The heading of section 6 still continues.”
The Court further, asked the Centre,
“Where do you have the power to pick up a matter and say, you do this, you don’t do this?”
Referring to the language of the letter issued by the Government, the Bench said,
“Then saying it is only a recommendation to the Board? From where do you derive this power?”
Also Read: “What About Kanhaiya Lal?” SC Asked PIL Petitioner
ASG Sharma asked the Court to consider whether he had actually overstepped the legal limits. He said,
“Have I gone beyond the powers? Central Govt would become a repository for certification. We will become third appellate authority. Board is relegated with this. I don’t have to pass an order on everything.”
To this, the Chief Justice responded sharply,
“But what made you suggest cuts?”
The Court pointed out that the Centre’s communication was not merely advisory in tone but had a mandatory character.
It said,
“It was a direction not a suggestion. You are hereby ‘ordered’. You considered and you ordered producer to take further action and act on the recommendation. Does it leave any discretion with them?”
The Bench clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the film or its content but solely with the legality of the Centre’s actions. It said,
“We are not on merits. But once any issue relating to jurisdiction of a statutory authority comes to the court, we are bound to decide that solely on that aspect alone at the moment.”
The Court added,
“Let us be very clear of powers under Section 226. We never interfered in the merits. The law, rule, statute, procedure are to be followed, they are not merely technical. They are safeguards against arbitrariness in the hands of executive.”
Faced with the strong judicial observations, ASG Sharma said,
“My Lord may set it aside, relegate the matter once again to pass an appropriate order.”
He expressed the Centre’s dilemma by saying,
“It is like ‘karo toh maro, na karo toh maro’.”
The Chief Justice, however, emphasised that once a certificate is granted by the CBFC after strict scrutiny, it is presumed to be valid.
He said,
“Once a certificate is issued by a board which is competent by under the statute comprising of experts, and the process of seeking a prayer for certification of a film undergoes a very strict scrutiny by examination committee by supervisory committee, there is a presumption.”
He clarified,
“We are not concerned with the decision, we are concerned with the decision-making process and the statutory contours within which any authority has to exercise its part.”
Later, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who is representing the movie producers, also began his arguments in support of the film and its certification.
As the hearing progressed, ASG Sharma informed the Bench,
“I have taken instructions. My Lord pass the order, may relegate the matter.”
The Delhi High Court will continue the hearing at 2.30 PM.
Kanhaiya Lal, a Hindu tailor from Udaipur, was murdered in broad daylight in June 2022. The accused—Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous filmed the act and circulated a video where they claimed that the murder was done in revenge.
They alleged that Kanhaiya Lal had supported former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma on social media. Sharma had made controversial remarks about the Prophet, which had led to widespread outrage.
The controversy over the re-examination of the movie The Udaipur Files was brought to the forefront by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.
During an earlier hearing, she strongly challenged the Central Government’s role in directing changes to the already certified film, arguing that its revisional powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act are limited.
She stated,
“The Central government cannot suggest cuts, modify dialogue, disclaimer, basically become film board like in this case.” Emphasising that the government had acted beyond its statutory authority, she added, “The Central government does not have the statutory power to become a master director of this film by saying ‘remove certain dialog, remove certain disclaimers, use these words in the disclaimer, change the content of this, I’m going to make a few cuts and you release the film’.”
However, The case is scheduled to be heard again at 2:30 PM for further proceedings.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tailor Kanhaiya Lal