New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed the release of the controversial film, ‘The Udaipur Files: Kanhaiyalal Tailor Murder’, just a day before it was to hit theatres.
The stay came in response to multiple legal challenges, including petitions alleging that the film vilifies the Muslim community and could disrupt communal harmony.
Produced by Amit Jani, the crime drama features well-known actor Vijay Raaz among others. The subject of the movie is the 2020 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli, who was murdered by two Muslims for putting up a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
The film has also prompted a separate writ petition in the Supreme Court. Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the killing, has approached the apex court seeking a stay on the film’s release and protection of his right to a fair trial.
A bench of Chief Justice D.K.Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal directed that the film’s release be put on hold until the Central government reviews its content under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. This provision allows the government to revise a film’s certification either suo motu or upon receiving a complaint from an aggrieved party.
The court emphasised that while it has the power to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners should first approach the Central government for redress. “We are not saying we lack jurisdiction,” it noted, “but statutory remedies must be exhausted first.”
The order was passed in a batch of three petitions, one of which was filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, who argued that the film presents a distorted narrative that vilifies Muslims and falsely implicates community leaders in the murder.
Appearing for Madani, senior advocate Kapil Sibal stressed the urgency of the matter, pointing out that the movie was scheduled for release the very next day.
Sibal also informed the bench that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had earlier issued a show cause notice to the filmmakers on 26 June, after the release of the trailer, citing non-compliance with certification rules.
While the producers claimed the trailer had been taken down, Sibal contested that it remained accessible online. He added that the communal undertones of the film became clear only after watching it in full.
In light of the concerns raised, the court allowed the petitioners two days to file a revision application before the central government. It also permitted them to request interim relief. The government has been directed to decide the matter within a week, giving the film’s producers an opportunity to be heard.
Until the government takes a decision, the stay on the film’s release remains temporarily.
Earlier in the proceedings, the CBFC told the court that several potentially offensive portions of the film had already been removed. The court had then instructed the producer to arrange a special screening of the movie and trailer for both the CBFC and the petitioners’ counsel.
Advocate Shreeyash U.Lalit, representing the filmmakers, informed the court that the movie was set to release in 1,800 theatres and that over one lakh tickets had already been sold. However, the bench made it clear that scale or commercial expectations do not override legal or constitutional concerns.
The petitions also sought removal of the film’s trailer from platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), arguing that it falsely suggests complicity of Muslim community leaders in the murder, and could incite public disorder.
Although the Central government requested a deferral of the hearing due to a similar matter pending before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court proceeded, noting that the top court had not issued any stay or interim order.
The case arises from the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, which led to nationwide outrage and an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The film, according to its critics, goes beyond reporting facts and promotes a communal narrative that could influence both public sentiment and ongoing legal proceedings.
(Edited by Tony Rai)