‘Udaipur Files’: SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC

The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer.

While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.

“We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,” the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, “meanwhile nothing.”

Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. “What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?” Bhatia asked.

The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay.

Sibal said, “I am not disputing that. In any case he can’t screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.”

Another counsel urged the bench, “Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.” The bench, however, did not agree.

Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story,  and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. “Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?” he said.

Bhatia added, “All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn’t make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.”

Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, “And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.” The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer.

A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. “The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?” he submitted.

“Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,” he added.

Bhatia questioned Madani’s credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. “They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?” he asked.

Justice Kant said, “Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?”

Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this “for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.” The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release.

Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case.

But Justice Bagchi said, “In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won’t put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.”

Sibal said “They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.”

“You have (already) challenged it,” said Justice Bagchi.

Sibal said, “If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).” Justice Kant, however, said, “No, how can we compel them to make a statement!”