New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Tuesday raised serious constitutional concerns over the Centre’s use of revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, as it continued hearing petitions seeking to halt the release of Udaipur Files—a film based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor who was brutally murdered in Udaipur.
At the heart of the proceedings is the interpretation of Section 6 of the Act, which governs the revisional powers of the Central Government concerning film certifications.
Crucially, Section 6(2)(a) permits the Centre to stop the screening of an uncertified film, while Section 6(2)(c) empowers it to suspend the exhibition of any film for a specific period. Section 6(2)(b) permits the Centre to amend the certification granted to the movie.
Originally, Section 6(1) empowered the Central Government to pass any order it deemed fit regarding the exhibition of a film—even after the CBFC had issued a certificate. This included altering or overruling the CBFC’s decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Union of India v. KM Shankarappa struck down Section 6(1), which previously allowed the Centre to override CBFC certification, holding it violative of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech).
Following this judgment, the Centre’s powers under Section 6 have been limited to Section 6(2), which remains valid.
In the Udaipur Files case, the Centre approved the film’s release on 21 July, subject to six cuts and a modified disclaimer. Petitioners have challenged this, arguing that the government overstepped its authority by directing content alterations under the pretext of revisional powers.
In this backdrop, the Delhi High Court questioned whether the Centre could impose cuts or disclaimers on a film already certified by the CBFC. “You are not exercising your general administrative powers,” the Bench observed, pressing the Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma on whether such orders were even authorised under the statute. “The nature of order you passed—you said effect six cuts, etc.—whether this authority is available under the statute?” the Court asked.
The legal battle has opened a deeper debate over two competing constitutional rights: The right to artistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Petitioners argue that the release of Udaipur Files, which is about an ongoing criminal case, could prejudice the trial and compromise potential witness testimonies. On the other hand, the filmmakers assert their right to tell a “crime-specific” story, especially after complying with official certification.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing petitions filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, president of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and Mohammad Javed, one of the accused in the Udaipur murder case. The Supreme Court had earlier directed them to approach the High Court after the Union Government, on 21 July, approved the film’s release with six cuts and a revised disclaimer.
Also read: 127 cuts for Punjab ’95 shows institutional paranoia
Crux of the arguments
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Javed, argued that the Central Government had exceeded its statutory remit. She submitted that the Centre could not impose cuts or disclaimers once the CBFC had already processed the film, especially after Shankarappa, which stripped the Centre of any appellate-like power. “After that judgment, the Central Government cannot act as an appellate body or substitute its opinion for the CBFC’s certification,” Guruswamy said.
The Court appeared unconvinced by the Centre’s defence. “You still haven’t replied to the question that the Central Government, while exercising revisional powers and passing the impugned order, has acted as an appellate board. And the power is not approved of in the Karnataka High Court judgment,” the Bench remarked sharply to the ASG.
Justice Gedela also questioned why this particular film required exceptional government scrutiny. “What makes this one so special?” he asked, noting that other high-profile criminal cases had not prompted similar executive actions.
Guruswamy responded that the film’s timing and content posed a genuine risk of influencing witnesses and even judicial officers. She noted that the film was not a fictionalised retelling but rather a cinematic reproduction of the chargesheet itself. “The producers themselves have stated as much,” she said, pointing to dialogues directly lifted from legal documents. She also highlighted that the deceased’s son, a key prosecution witness, had already testified.
Her submissions were anchored on three main legal propositions. First, she argued that the film’s release would violate the petitioner’s right to a fair trial. Second, she contended that the Centre’s use of Section 6(2) was ultra vires, as the law does not permit it to impose content changes. And third, she submitted that the release could amount to contempt of court, endangering the integrity of ongoing judicial proceedings.
In response to the third claim about contempt of court, Chief Justice Upadhyaya noted that while the right to a fair trial is sacrosanct, there is also a public right to access content. “You will have to explain how exactly this constitutes contempt of court,” he said, pointing to Article 19(2), which allows reasonable restrictions on speech in the interest of justice.
To support her case, Guruswamy cited key precedents including Sahara India v. SEBI and Amish Devgan v. Union of India, where courts laid down tests for evaluating permissible speech based on content, intent, and potential harm. She also referred to past High Court rulings restricting true-crime films during pending trials, including those relating to Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the producers, defended the film as a lawful exercise of artistic expression. He informed the Court that all the cuts directed by the Centre had been made and the revised disclaimer was in place—but the CBFC had not yet issued a fresh certificate.
“No screening can occur without re-certification,” the Chief Justice clarified, observing that there was “no urgency in the matter”.
Legal background and context
Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the film was not targeted at a community, but rather “crime-specific”. He cautioned against allowing public sensitivity to dictate film releases. “If we start halting releases just because someone disagrees with the content, it will set a dangerous precedent,” he said.
Bhatia echoed this sentiment, warning against “hypersensitivity syndrome” in public discourse.
In previous hearings, the Court had directed a private screening for counsel after learning that over 40 modifications were made during the CBFC process. On 25 July, the Supreme Court refused to stay the release but left legal questions on the Centre’s powers open for the High Court to decide.
As the matter continues on 1 August, the Court is expected to further examine whether the Centre’s certification actions under Section 6(2) were constitutional, and whether the release of Udaipur Files could endanger the fairness of the ongoing trial.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Sacred name sparks courtroom drama: What CBFC argued in affidavit opposing Janaki vs State of Kerala