Supreme Court hears plea on ‘Udaipur Files’ film release, weighing free speech against accused’s fair trial rights. Justices question CBFC cuts, Centre’s role, and prejudice to ongoing trial.
New Delhi: Today, on July 24, the Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a sensitive matter regarding the release of the film “Udaipur Files”, which is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal Teli in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the case.
Several petitions have been filed, alleging that the release of the film could impact ongoing investigations and court proceedings. At the same time, the producer of the movie has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court’s interim order that stayed the release of the film.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producer, started the hearing by showing the court the Centre’s recommendation and certification.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing on behalf of one of the accused in the Udaipur case, argued that the release of this film could severely impact her client’s right to a fair trial.
In response, Justice Kant observed,
“It happens in all regimes”
and added that their appointments were not under legal challenge. Justice Bagchi also remarked that a government is entitled to have an advisory panel, and
“prima facie there was nothing wrong with it.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, supported the panel’s process, reminding the Court that
“freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) is religion neutral.”
The Delhi High Court had earlier stayed the film’s release on July 10, acting on Madani’s petition, and invoked Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to grant the Centre a week to decide the objections.
The filmmakers were asked by the SC on July 16 to wait for the Centre’s decision, and the panel was ordered to give a hearing to all stakeholders, including the accused.
It was also noted by the Court that while an accused’s right to fair trial and reputation cannot be restored if harmed, the filmmakers could be compensated financially if the release is delayed.
Justice Surya Kant responded by stating,
“Let us see what recommendations the Centre has made.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised questions about how the committee that reviewed the film was formed. He said that members from a particular political party were included in the committee and questioned their neutrality.
Justice Kant remarked,
“Their appointment itself is not under challenge here they must have been duly nominated.”
In response to the political bias allegation, Justice Kant explained,
“For example if it’s a Tamil film the panel would need someone who understands the language.”
Sibal agreed and said,
“Exactly but we need to examine who is actually on this panel. In the revision process they suggested different cuts yet our main objections were never addressed.”
Sibal strongly urged the court to view the film themselves, saying,
“Just see the film if the your lordships say that they have no objections I will not say anything.”
He added,
“There is a judgement of this court which deals with this issue. Free speech cannot be hate speech.”
In return, Justice Kant asked,
“Other than what you’ve quoted in paragraph 4, is there anything else either against him or against the film?”
Advocate Kapil Sibal said,
“Everything about this movie spouts venom against a community.”
Justice Kant again inquired,
“You’ve raised objections to specific expressions. Apart from what you quoted is there anything else?”
To that, Sibal responded,
“The entire film spreads hatred and targets a particular community.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued that the facts of the underlying case were already public.
He stated,
“The accused in the underlying crime themselves posted on Facebook that they killed him.”
However, Menaka Guruswamy countered that statement by saying,
“Not this accused he’s only 19 and never posted anything.”
Tushar Mehta further defended the film by stating,
“The film focuses on the crime, not on targeting any community. The dialogues are generic, references to terrorism are context specific, and the themes don’t threaten foreign relations. A screening was held before the committee and CBFC mandated cuts were made. The characters are fictional composites and the film does not vilify any community.”
He concluded by saying,
“The film focuses on the crime, not any community. Terrorism references are contextual there’s no contempt of court, no real names are used and it carries a disclaimer with a voice over. Article 19(1)(a) must be religion neutral not selective.”
To that, Sibal replied,
“That’s exactly the issue here.”
He further argued,
“There are films based on real life incidents.” Guruswamy reiterated the need to protect the accused’s rights: “As an accused I have a right to fair trial.”
Justice Kant assured the bench’s objectivity, saying,
“A judicial officer is duty bound and will only take judgements on basis of evidence. Judiciary must remain away from all this nonsense. Most of us don’t even read the newspaper in the morning.”
Guruswamy brought up the precedent in the 26/11 Mumbai attack case, stating,
“Even in the trial of 26/11 the movie were stayed till the trial gets completed. I am accused in the incident they are showing. It will prejudice the society. The movie is based on the prosecution’s chargesheet.”
Justice Kant, however, held a broader view, saying,
“Anyone can write a novel a story or make a film. If every work is examined on whether someone might feel identified or connected to it, it would lead to endless confusion. Ultimately it is up to society to choose whether to watch a film or not and individual rights can still be protected while allowing others the freedom to view it if they wish.”
Guruswamy questioned the powers of the Centre under the Cinematograph Act, claiming,
“Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act doesn’t empower the Centre to recommend cuts.”
Justice Kant responded,
“Let’s not get into that if they feel something is undesirable that doesn’t take away their ability to suggest changes.”
Continuing her argument, Guruswamy said,
“They do not have the power to do this.”
Justice Kant clarified the Centre’s role by stating,
“If the Centre has the authority to certify a film it also carries the authority to decide what should stay and what should be removed. It cannot simply remain a silent observer. This power to make such decisions is inherent in the power to certify.”
Advocate Gaurav Bhatia countered arguments made against the committee’s role by pointing out,
“The Delhi HC has also said that the committee has the power to edit. Javed for whom my learned friend appears he is not even mentioned in the movie. He has submitted a false affidavit. I just need 15 mins to show where the law lies.”
Bhatia then walked the court through relevant legal precedents and added,
“There is prima facie assumption that authority has taken into consideration the issue of public order.”
He also recalled another case and said,
“There is another order where Harish Salve agreed to add a disclaimer to end controversy. The film already has 55 cuts by the CBFC and 6 more by the authority so it’s not even as the director intended but we accepted it. Statutory bodies views must be respected. The accused represented by Menaka ji isn’t even named in the film. The movie depicts how some radical elements kill someone for expressing his rights.”
Justice Kant addressed the procedural status of the appeal, saying,
“You waited as the law requires. Your SLP is now infructuous both sides may approach the High Court.”
Finally, Justice Kant concluded for the day by saying,
“Alright we’ll take another 10, 15 minutes tomorrow to conclude the matter. His SLP has become infructuous. Mr. Sibal is free to amend your petition and file a challenge you can seek appropriate relief before the HC.”
The Supreme Court will resume the matter on the next scheduled date.
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.
The matter has now reached the Supreme Court, where arguments are being made balancing the constitutional right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) with the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
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
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Tailor Kanhaiya Lal
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
