Thread by @LiveLawIndia

Delhi High Court will hear today pleas against the “Udaipur Files” film, based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder.

Pleas have been filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President and Mohammed Javed- one of the accused in the case.

#UdaipurFiles #DelhiHighCourt

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela will hear the matter.

Case placed top of the board.

#DelhiHighCourt #UdaipurFiles

Matter taken up.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for petitioner Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia appearing for film producer.

ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for CBFC.

ASG: There were couple of things i had to answer on the last date. It is a legal question which has to be answered legally. Please see Section 5B. The Act has to be seen as a whole and construed harmoniously.

ASG now refers to Section 6(2) of Cinematography Act.

ASG: An exercise of power under this prefaces that it has to be a notification. And then it says that these are the three ingredients.

ASG now referring to the Rules under the Act.

ASG: Please see Rule 25.

#UdaipurFiles

ASG: We have not issued the notification. If it is not done, it is deemed in law that the revision petition is dismissed. So far as the cuts are concerned, this follows three things.

ASG: It follows statutory regime in its entirety because Rule 25 sub rule 10 echoes Section 6(2).

#UdaipurFiles #DelhiHighCourt

ASG: There is no doubt that in the overarching mandate of Sec 5B…. Has centre violated the mandate of Shankarappa judgment? It has kept it self aware. It has not done anything on its own.

The certificate is granted. It is not under challenge.

ASG: Sec 5B(2) there is power which is to be read in the interface of Sec 6(2)(a), which says if i have the power to appoint, i have the power to dismiss. If i have the power to award, i have the power to cancel.

ASG: What have i done? I have kept a distance. And because there was the court was pleased to ask parties to view the matter, it was previewed. Cuts were there. It is all beyond the statute. If it has gone that way, there must have been something that please see to it there is nothing which can offend sentiment. The revising committee, if they have applied their mind…

ASG: We comply with the Act, order of Constitutional Court.

Judges discussing.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy also appearing for the accused petitioner.

ASG: The legal preposition, I have to satisfy that.

Court: We have understood your submission. It is that Sec 5B (2) entrusts CG to do anything and Sec 6(2) decision has to be notified and if it is not notified, it will be deemed that their revision petition is dismissed.

Court: There are some queries again. See sec 5(2).

ASG: There is something i missed that day. I missed out to read two judgments. First is Nachiketa’s case which is answer to my friend’s query on fair trial.

Court: Section 6 is independent of Section 5B(2). Therefore the order of July 21 has to be considered within scope of power which could be exercised by the central govt under Section 6(2). It is a statutory power. Order passed of the central govt is not passed in executive powers. Here central govt is acting as statutory authority. That statutory authority has to be exercised within contours of sec 6(2), not beyond that. We appreciate your efforts, the committee members, you included secy to see law and order, you also included one secy of dept of foreign affairs, all this we appreciate. But question remains, what nature of order passed by Centre under revisional powers?

Court: What exactly did you do? You made certain directions over and above which was done by film certification board which is not permissible here. Which is what Karnataka HC said.

Rules dont prescribe any procedure how revision petition has to be dealt with by the central govt.

Court: Any reference to Rules to the manner in which revisional authority is to be exercised by central government is highly misplaced.

#UdaipurFiles #DelhiHighCourt

Justice Gedela: Please see Rule 25(1), it refers to application upon representation made under Section 4(2). It appears that it is relatable to the board only. Please come to sec 8 also. Power to make Rules. What are the various components on which central govt can make rules. There is nothing to do with sec 6. What you have done is, you have not taken a decision you have given an advisory. That is appreciated.

CJ: We appreciate you gave hearing to all parties. We appreciate all that. The question is still whether you exercised your authority within sec 6(2) or not.

ASG: It is not my case that Rules or Sec 5B (2) supplant or usurp sec 6(2). I am not putting my case in the statutory jacket of the Rules. I am attempting to urge is that sec 6B(1) which is in the negative, which says you cannot give certification, it inheres certification also. Legally it inheres.

Court: Lets not forget that while deleting sec 6(1), the heading of sec 6 is not deleted. You know the role heading plays while interpreting a provision. It gives nature of the powers made available by a particular section. Revisional powers of central govt, this heading still continues.

ASG: The revisional powers of CG are not deluded rather they are kept intact after deletion of sec 6(1). It is a wide power.

Illustrations are given in law but they dont override the quintessence of a statute.

ASG: The officer tells me we have not done more than recommend. Today there is no notification.

Court: The only authority available to you is you can issue general principles under Sec 5(2) and the other power is sec 6(2). You can only say no this film is unfit to be certified. After consideration.

ASG: Our consideration is backed up by some fairness on our part.

Court: We appreciate but the power available to you, what could you and what you could not do. To say that we recommended cuts, From where do you derive this power? In that case you defeated their right to revision. Where is the adjudication on their prayer of revision? It is not a representation. It is a revision under sec 6 and thus, you are not exercising general powers.

ASG: Have I gone beyond the Act or Rules? If Sec 6(2) is to be construed standalone in this manner, then CG will become a repository which will receive 2 lakh revision petitions and they have to apply… we will become the third appellate authority. We cannot. Its the board which can do it. We will be flooded, we will crash.

Court: This direction was issued by court under Art 226 jurisdiction. You can’t question the court direction for organizing exhibition of film. We are not hearing these petitions under any statutory provision. These are writ petitions.

Justice Gedela: The question is, what is the issue you have to decide? What are the possible powers you can exercise? Recommendations are different.

ASG: Even in our recommendatory order, we have not gone by sec 6(2) or abc. We have said in compliance of the judgment of High Court. Recommendations is just recommendations. The query is who gave you the power?

Court: These are not recommendations. These are directions. “Producers of the film are hereby ordered”. It is an order to the producer to take further action. This order is not to board. It is to producer. Whether this order leaves any discretion with the producer not to do anything?

ASG: It is saying that this is the action that should be taken.

Court: You still say it is at the discretion of the board?

ASG: Yes.

Court: Are you sure?

ASG: Yes.

What about the petitioner’s grievance? What about their revision petition?: Court

They have got the sky. They already had the land. What more do they want? They have got everything under the sun. First came 55 cuts, then 6 cuts: ASG

Court: We are not considering anything on merits. We are conscious once film is certified, we cant interfere with opinion of board. Revision is with you. Nothing on the merits. We are conscious that this film has passed muster of very strict procedure. They all comprise of experts. The power to interfere in such matters is very limited. But once any issue relating to jurisdiction of any statutory authority comes to court, we are bound to decide that. We are solely on that at the moment.

J. Gedela: We are on very limited issue. Only want to see that your order falls under sec 6(2)?

CJ: Court is never concerned with the decision of the authority. We never interfere with merits. But law, rule, statute, procedure are to be followed. They are not merely technical. There are safeguards provided against arbitrariness. We are not concerned with the film at all.

ASG: If your lordships think that the order of the central government is bad, then relegate once again to pass an appropriate order. If i have not made any headway, then this can be done.

Court: We appreciated that you gave them ample opportunity, you took note of sensitivity of the aspect, we appreciate that. But once question comes of jurisdiction, what all 226 is meant for?

Matter will be heard at 2:30 PM.

#UdaipurFiles

ASG: I have taken instructions. Your lordships may set aside the order and relegate the mater back to pass an order jn accordance with the law.

#UdaipurFiles

Court: Then we will have to pass a detailed order and interpret how the powers have to be exercised.

Please come at 2:30. Consider all these aspects.

Matter to be heard at 2:30 PM.

Hearing resumes.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy appearing for petitioners.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia representing film producer. ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for CBFC.

ASG: I have taken instructions. We will withdraw the order. Revisit order and pass an order in accordance with law.

Court: This disposes of two petitions. Third petition will be heard later.

Court records order.

Bhatia: Movie was to be released on 11th. I have lost 20 days. Now movie is to be released on 8th or earlier if i get theatres.

We will say they will decide revision before that day: Court

Bhatia: Today I hold a valid certificate. There should be no stay on the release.

They are withdrawing order. Hearing will have to be afforded. You will also be heard: Court

Bhatia: The first process was, they got hearing opportunity. Committee made recommendations. That part has been faulted with.

ASG: I am withdrawing because of form of order. Not because of Sec 6(2).

Court: How much time will you take Mr. Sharma?

ASG: As expeditiously as possible. We will decide it before 8th, within four days.

Bhatia: Even supposing order is passed on Wednesday, releasing movie on Saturday wont be possible. The material and recommendations are with them. It can be done within 24 hours.

Bhatia: If it could be by Monday. Last time one week was given when certain formalities were to be done. All that now needs to be done is recommendations and decision. If it comes by Monday, there is possibility it can be released on Saturday.

Court: I can fix a date from here only. Hear all the parties on Monday. Take a decision on Tuesday or Wednesday.

We will not give hearing. Our order is faulted because of technical fault of its format. We have heard them. We have given them opportunity: ASG

Court records order.

Court: After arguments were heard on behalf of parties at some length, ASG representing CG and CBFC on instructions state that the government shall withdraw the impugned order dated July 11, 2025, and take a decision on revision petition of the parties. The petitions are disposed of of in terms of the statement of ASG.
It has been urged by producer counsel that the next date of release of film has been declared as August 8 and they shall take time for making arrangements for release of the movie by engaging theatres. We direct that parties to revision petition shall appear before the govt on Monday at 2 PM and make their submissions. We further provide that no further notice be issued for parties to appear before revisional authority. We also direct that parties shall not seek adjournment on their appearance on Monday. After hearing parties, appropriate decision as per law shall be taken by revisional authority on the revision petitions by Wednesday.

Court: We make it clear that any observations made by us in this order or during hearing shall not be construed as our opinion on merits of claims of the parties.

#UdaipurFiles

Hearing ends.

#UdaipurFiles #DelhiHighCourt