In a significant development reflecting the Indian judiciary’s cautious stance on censorship, the Supreme Court refused to entertain an urgent plea seeking a stay on the release of the controversial film titled “Udaipur Files.” The petition was filed by individuals accused in the brutal murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur whose killing in June 2022 had triggered nationwide outrage. The apex court declined to grant any urgent relief, thereby allowing the movie to proceed toward its scheduled public release. The plea had sought immediate intervention on grounds that the film’s content could endanger communal harmony and prejudice the ongoing legal proceedings.
The background of the case lies in the gruesome murder of Kanhaiya Lal, who was killed in broad daylight by two individuals allegedly motivated by his social media support of remarks made by a political figure concerning Prophet Muhammad. The act was not only carried out with shocking brutality but was also filmed and shared on social media, heightening the communal sensitivities surrounding the incident. The accused, who are facing trial under charges including terrorism, moved the Supreme Court on the basis that the release of a film inspired by these events would seriously jeopardize their right to a fair trial and provoke public sentiment against them.
The petitioners argued that the movie, which is presented as a dramatized retelling of the incident, portrays them in a guilty light even before the conclusion of the judicial process. They claimed that this public depiction would further incite hatred, disturb communal peace, and infringe on the constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition also referred to the trailer of the film, which had already been made available online. According to the petitioners, the trailer contained inflammatory dialogues, derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad, and elements that portrayed a particular religious community in a deeply negative and offensive light.
In addition to raising questions about the film’s content, the plea challenged the legality of the Central Board of Film Certification’s approval of the movie. It stated that the CBFC had failed to consider the sensitive nature of the subject matter and its potential to provoke communal unrest. The petitioners contended that the movie’s release, even if artistic in intent, could not be justified when it had the capacity to influence public opinion in a highly volatile atmosphere.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court refused to grant any urgent stay or relief. The bench stated that it would not interfere with the release at this stage, and that the petitioners were free to explore remedies through appropriate legal forums. The court did not express any view on the merits of the film or its certification but made it clear that preventive censorship must meet a high threshold, particularly when weighed against the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
While petitioners and organizations such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have objected to the film, others, particularly right-wing groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, have supported it. They have claimed that such films merely bring factual narratives into the public domain and do not intend to promote hate or communal disharmony. They argue that restricting such films would amount to suppressing the truth.
The refusal by the Supreme Court to stay the film’s release reflects a broader judicial philosophy that discourages pre-release censorship and emphasizes post-facto legal remedies. The case underscores the ongoing tension between artistic freedom and communal sensitivity in India and highlights the challenges courts face in balancing these competing interests in a democratic framework.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.