The Supreme Court of India has declined to remove the Delhi High Court-imposed stay on the movie Udaipur Files, – a movie made on the killing of tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli’s murder in Udaipur by two Muslim youth and broadcast live on Facebook in 2022, by the same perpetrators.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi of the apex court heard the urgent application and decided not to intervene.
“We will keep the matter pending. We can have benefit of view of Union of India before the HC. Suppose union says nothing wrong then we will see that. If they make some cuts then also we can peruse the same. If centre was not taking up the matter, then different . We are told committee has been formed and union is looking into it..we can wait for a day or two,” the Court said.
“We expect that committee will decide the revision plea immediately without any loss of time. Post the matter for further consideration on July 21,” the bench said.
The movie was slated to be released on July 11.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia represented the film producers, at the hearing to remove the stay order arguing that they have a valid censor certificate from the CBFC.
“My movie was to be released after 12 hours. The movie was with 800 distributors. Now it is about piracy issues. If they decide by tomorrow to at least exhibit the movie. This is a reasonable request,” Bhatia said.
Bhatia also argued for fundamental rights of the movie producers. At this, the top court said it cannot deal with the matter at this stage in view of the High Court order.
“We see these fundamental rights issue everyday. If it is released then both petitions are infructuous. Plea before centre and this plea by accused goes. If statute gives a right and that right is availed. High Court has only relegated the parties to the remedy in the statute,” the Court remarked.
Former Law Minister for India, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, opposed the release submitting the movie was against a community and he was shaken when he watched it.
“Once I saw the movie. I was shaken. It was a complete thematic dissertation against a community. I am usually for free speech but here the case is different. This is a movie which seeks and generates violence. It is a complete vilification of entire community.. violence, homosexuality, child abuse everything about the community.. it is unthinkable that a democracy will allow such a movie to be shown,” Sibal said.
Irreparable damage if released
The Court added that the release of the movie could cause irreparable damage but the impact of the delay in its release can be compensated.
“If the movie is released.. there will be irreparable damage. If it not then you can be compensated. Also don’t miss movie culture. More the suspense the more better it does,” it said.
It can be argued that the judicial discretion in India has been used to render the judicial system to be arbitrary and ad hoc; it has been used to manoeuvre the judicial system to deliver results to suit the predilection of the judge and of the hour, rather than justice and the nation.
It is a strange position to take when in the case of another Hindi movie PK, when Hindus approached the apex court complaining that the movie ridiculed Hindu Gods, the court refused to even hear the application saying, they (the Hindus) were being too’ touchy’ and adding ‘if you do not like it, don’t watch it’.
Justice Surya Kant (of the Supreme Court), also, as some in the Indian media have argued, made a complete mockery of the Indian Evidence law, when he blamed Nupur Sharma to be “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country” and characterized Ms Sharma by saying her “loose tongue has set the entire country on fire“.
What Nupur Sharma said was utterly offensive and should never have been said. But Justice Surya Kant did not take cognizance of Taslim Rehmani insulting Hindu sentiments and thus, inciting co-panelist Nupur Sharma.
Esteemed legal luminaries know that Obiter Dicta is no pub banter and in the eyes of the common man carries legal weight of a “finding by the court”. It has many repercussions on the polity.
Clearly, this extent of judicial liberty (not discretion) can be quite uncomfortable for many within the legal fraternity and may set a dangerous precedent of the understanding of judiciary discipline for many young people coming into the profession.