Vijay Raaz’s controversial film ‘Udaipur files’, based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, 2022, is entangled in legal and political complications, even the central government has given conditional approval for its release. Despite this, the Supreme Court has maintained a temporary migration on the dramatic rollout of the film, citing the concerns on potential communal disagreement and judicial intervention.
Six amendments ordered by Center in Udaipur files
Following a directive by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting formed a high-level review panel on 14 July to re-examine the content and certification of the film. After reviewing the film, the panel has directed the makers to implement six additional changes on the top of 55 cuts already implemented by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
According to ANI, the committee has recommended the following changes:
-
A modified disclaimer must change the original with a voice-over.
-
All credit frames that express thanks to specific persons should be removed.
-
A visually acute AI-related scene is similar to the “Saudi Arabia-style” execution.
-
The character name is to completely change the name “Natan Sharma”, including the promotional material.
-
All dialogues were attributed to this character – especially those who refer to religious scriptures – which must be removed.
-
Films about the Balochi community are to be removed to prevent stereotyping.
These recommendations were placed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, where Justice Surya Kant and a bench in Joymlya Bagchi stated, “The Center’s order would be binding, unless you challenge it and your petition is allowed.” The court also set the next hearing for July 24, which the petitioners got time to register objections on the Center’s decision.
Background: What about Udaipur files?
The film is a dramatic account inspired by the horrific murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor, which was brutally killed in Udaipur in June 2022, as he allegedly supported Nupur Sharma’s controversial comments about Prophet Muhammad. The attackers not only recorded the murder, but were later booked under the stringent illegal activities (prevention) Act. Currently, a special NIA is under trial in Jaipur.
The release of the film has triggered a sharp division in public and legal opinion. While some cheer it as an attempt to bring it to light uncomfortable truth, others argue that it risks to incite communal sentiments and potentially interfere in an ongoing judicial process.
Legal Battle: Who stands
On July 10, the case reached the Supreme Court for the first time after the Delhi High Court, on July 10, he was on the release of ‘Udaipur files’ and Jamit Ulema-e-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madani allowed the cancellation of the CBFC certificate of the film. Manufacturers-Jani Firefox Media argued through senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, stating that the High Court verdict was flawed and based on a private screening rather than a legal review.
Bhatia further said that ‘Udaipur files’ is a fictional story inspired by real events, not a documentary. He said that CBFC had already approved the film after significant changes, including including the inclusion of Gyanvapi Masjid and removal of Nupur Sharma’s references. “The film does not bother any community,” he said.
However, the petitioners disagreed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented Madani, argued that the film “was an attack on the Muslim community.” Meanwhile, Maneka Guruswami, appearing on behalf of one of the accused in the murder case, expressed concern that the film “may prejudice her customer’s ongoing trial.”
Speaking for the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the government had reviewed the amendment petitions and took a decision within its jurisdiction, but stopped to reduce the depth during the hearing.
CBFC’s earlier defense
CBFC had earlier defended its decision to certify the film, stating that it had ensured a series of total cuts – in total 55 – which included the deletion of stimulating scenes, insertion of disconnections, and renaming real places (such as replacing “Rajasthan” with “state”). The board also confirmed that the controversial trailer was removed from movement after a show-causal notice.
