BLANKET BANNING OF UDAIPUR FILE AND LEGAL RIGMAROLE

 

The production team of the Udaipur File movie heaved a sigh of relief after a bench led by Chief Justice DK. Upadayaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedala decreed its release. The Delhi High Court bench had to consider the clearance given to the film by the expert body under the Cinematograph Act 1992, which states that no irreparable harm would be caused by its release before the verdict. Amit Jani, the filmmaker of the movie Udaipur File, and the team met the Information and Broadcasting Minister for the second time on August 4 regarding the film's release, which was to be scheduled for exhibition on 8th August in theatres. A huge amount was invested in making the movie by the producer. It took considerable time and effort to hunt for talents worthy of the characters in the storyline, including cast and crew, technicians, and writers, which wasa time-consuming exercise. These packs of human resources were impatiently looking forward to monitoring the audience's reaction upon its release. Originally, the film was planned to be released on 11 July across cinemas throughout India. However, a stay was granted by the Delhi Divisional Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhaya and Justice Anish Dayal, on 10 July, which delayed its release. This decision followed a petition filed by Mohd Javid, represented by Meneka Guruswamy and Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulama Hind, which was pleaded by Kapil Sibal seeking to halt the screening of the movie. The petition claimed the film was communally provocative and demeaning to the entire community, requesting a High Court order to ban its nationwide show. The producer of the Udhiapur File was left with only one option--to approach the Supreme Court for vacating the stay granted by the Delhi High Court. On the contrary, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi, refused to grant a stay, instead asking the petitioners to approach the High Court, which would view the case from the perspective of the Central Government's order allowing the release of the film after six more cuts. The Delhi High Court placed a temporary hold on the film’s release on10th July, pending the Central Government's assurance that screening of the film would not incite social disharmony. The script of 'Udaipur File' revolves around Kanayalal, an ordinary tailor, who was hacked to death with a concealed sharp weapon—hidden under clothes—by MohdRiyaz and GhouseMohmad at his shop in Udaipur in June 2022. The controversy stemmed from Kanhailal's social media support for Nupur Sharma, a BJP spokesperson, following her comments about the Prophet during a television panel discussion. Kanhailal was a modest tailor in a small market in Udaipur. He wasthe sole breadwinner for his joint family, which included his parents Kapil Sibal, a senior lawyer in the Supreme Court, represented Maulana Arshad Madani of Jamiat Ulama Hind, who argued vehemently in verbose jargon to persuade the justices to extend the stay on the Udaipur Movie, which he claimed had the potential to incite communal sentiments in the country. He went to describe the film not as art but as cinematic vandalism, which would be detrimental to the social fabric. Kapil Sibal argued the movie would foster hatred and venom against the Muslim community, which was targeted. He vouched for banning the release of the Udaipur File on the basis that it generated violence and vilification of one community. Before its scheduled release, the movie was censored with fifty-five cuts of objectionable scenes by the Central Board of Film Certification, as per the Cinematograph Act 1952, to promote social responsibility and sensitivity to societal values in artistic expression. The producer and his lawyer challenged the ban on screening of The Udaipur File movie, claiming that it was an implausible exaggeration. The contentious and horrendous wording tossed in the court implies that there was a deliberate attempt to destroy the reputation by open and direct abuses. Gaurav Bhatia, the lawyer appearing for Amit Jani, the producer of a movie, wanted Kapul Sibal, senior lawyer, to justify the vilification by whom and why. Does this mean that the majority community was so coordinated and hell bent upon to encourage violence against the people who belonged to a particular race or religion after the public viewership of Udaipur File? Had the Hindu majority ever raised any collective cry or come on the streets, pan-India, for violence against the other community? Two Sadhus were brutally killed in Phalghat, Maharashtra, with wood log sticks in a mob lynching, in April 2020, in the presence of police personnel. To recapitulate, another upheaval occurred in 1989-90 when four lakhs of the Kashmiri Hindu minorities were forced to leave their native landat the point of a gun by Pakistan-trained Kashmiri Islamists. These armed, trained Islamist Kashmiris turned to the target killing of Hindu social leaders, kidnapping and raping of their women, forcing them to run for safety in mainland India, leaving their movable and immovable properties by abandoning their ancestral house. Did any of the leftist, liberal democratic, socialistic ecosystems within the country react to the mass migration of a large section of a civilizational component of the Kashmir valley for three decades, or work out any narrative to defeat the sponsored terrorism? The recent communal violence broke out in Murshidabad, a bordering district of West Bengal, in April 2025 in response to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 under Mamta Banerjee, TMC leadership. The violence led to the displacement of 400 Hindu minority people; their houses and shops were set on fire. They were given a temporary shelter in a school building in Malda. Their worship places were set ablaze by the Muslim miscreants. The West Bengal police were silent spectators, allowing the communal hooligans to have their free play. This communal cruelty faced by the Hindus of Mushadabad had no fallout in any state of the country. No Hindu mob came out in any state to hold a protest demonstration in support of the communal targeting of the Bengali Hindu minority by the Muslim majority. Other lawyers in the courts cited counter arguments by referencing the cinematic portrayal of the Kashmir File, which was condemned as propaganda based on falsehoods by many politicians, yet did not result in a communal backlash against Kashmiri Muslims on any occasion. Another thematic film, The Kerala Story, released in May 2023 and focusing on crime, sex exploitation, and coercion into converting to Islam and joining the Islamic state, was seen as biased and Islamophobic, but did not cause any communal repercussions either in Kerala or in the rest of the adjoining states. Kamal Nahta of Film Information remarked, "The Kerala Story is a sure shot winner as it shakes the audience. Its word of mouth will be tremendous. In other words, collections are bound to increase. Of course, it may not gain support from Muslims. As gathered through past observation and experimentation, the majority of the Hindu community in the country is stratified in classes, castes, sub castes, clans, regions, languages, philosophies of beliefs, and worship. As such, there does not appear to be any single meeting point for the majority community to fall back upon to create a reason for interpreting religious violence against other believers. There could have been stray incidents in past in certain minuscule areas of the country, but never as large carnages as those of Noahkali in Bengal or Mopalla in Kerala. Moulana Arshad Madani, President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, had filed petitions to halt the movie Udaipur File in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Gujarat High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moulana Arshad Madani did not stop there, but dared to accuse the Censor Board of being complicit in a broader agenda to incite communal discord. Gurav Bhatia, senior lawyer, advocated for the producer of a movie, arguing that every time truth was shown or spoken, someone acted like a censor, calling the attempt to block the film a case of hypersensitive syndrome.

DISCLAIMER: 

The views expressed in the Article above are SURINDER KOUL  views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy: SURINDER KOUL  and  Spade A Spade,2025