Top News

Vijay Raaz's controversial film 'Udaipur Files', based on the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, remains entangled in legal and political complexities even as the Union government has granted conditional clearance for its release. Despite this, the Supreme Court has maintained a temporary stay on the film’s theatrical rollout, citing ongoing concerns over potential communal disharmony and judicial interference.

Six modifications ordered by the centre in Udaipur Files

Following a Supreme Court directive, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting constituted a high-level review panel on July 14 to re-examine the film’s content and certification. The panel, after reviewing the movie, has instructed the makers to implement six additional changes on top of the 55 cuts already enforced by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

According to ANI, the committee has recommended the following alterations:

• A revised disclaimer must replace the original, accompanied by a voice-over.

• All credit frames expressing thanks to specific individuals must be removed.

• A visually intense AI-generated scene resembling a “Saudi Arabia-style” execution must be modified.

• The character name “Nutan Sharma” is to be changed entirely, including on promotional material.

• All dialogues attributed to this character—especially those referencing religious scriptures—must be removed.

• Lines in the film concerning the Balochi community are to be deleted to prevent stereotyping.

These recommendations were placed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, where a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stated, “Centre’s order will be binding, unless you challenge it and your plea is allowed.” The court also scheduled the next hearing for July 24, allowing time for the petitioners to file objections to the Centre's decision.

Background: What is Udaipur Files about?

The film is a dramatised account inspired by the horrific murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor who was brutally killed in Udaipur in June 2022 after he allegedly voiced support for Nupur Sharma’s controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammad. The assailants not only recorded the murder but were later booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The trial is currently underway in a special NIA court in Jaipur.

The film’s release has triggered sharp divides in public and legal opinion. While some hail it as an attempt to bring uncomfortable truths to light, others argue it risks inflaming communal sentiments and potentially interfering with an ongoing judicial process.

Legal Battle: Who stands where

The case first reached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court, on July 10, stayed the release of 'Udaipur Files' and allowed Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani to approach the Union government seeking cancellation of the film’s CBFC certificate. The producers—Jani Firefox Media Ltd-challenged the stay, arguing through senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia that the high court’s decision was flawed and based on a private screening rather than a legal review.

Bhatia further asserted that 'Udaipur Files' is a fictionalised narrative inspired by real events, not a documentary. He noted that the CBFC had already cleared the film after significant changes, including removal of scenes involving the Gyanvapi mosque and references to Nupur Sharma. He maintained, “The film does not vilify any community.”

However, the petitioners vehemently disagreed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Madani, argued the film was “an assault on the Muslim community.” Meanwhile, Menaka Guruswamy, appearing on behalf of one of the accused in the murder case, expressed concern that the film could “prejudice her client’s ongoing trial.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking for the Centre, noted that the government had reviewed the revision petitions and taken a decision within its jurisdiction but stopped short of delving deeper during the hearing.

CBFC's earlier defence

The CBFC had previously defended its decision to certify the film, explaining that it had ensured a series of cuts - 55 in total - that included the deletion of provocative visuals, insertion of disclaimers, and renaming of real locations (like replacing “Rajasthan” with “Rajya”). The board also confirmed that the controversial trailer had been removed from circulation following a show-cause notice.