I&B panel OKs 'Udaipur Files', but no SC nod yet
NEW DELHI: The I&B ministry's special committee on Monday cleared the release of the film 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' with a new disclaimer, replacing the name 'Nutan Sharma' (representing
Nupur Sharma
in true story) and the line 'maine toh wohi kaha hai jo unke dharm grantho mein likha hai (I said what is written in their religious books)".
But the film, whose screening was objected to by Maulana Arshad Madani and the main accused Mohd Javed who beheaded the tailor at Udaipur for sharing a controversial post by Nupur Sharma on the Prophet's marriage, would not be released in theatres as a
Supreme Court
bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the petitioners to file their objections to the committee's Monday order. The bench posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Sharda University didn't file FIR on student's suicide, SC informed
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has been informed that the Sharda University in Greater Noida, where a girl student allegedly committed suicide, did not register the FIR in the incident but her parents did and that security guards brought down her body hanging from the ceiling fan of her hostel. Sharda University didn't file FIR on student's suicide, SC informed The information was given in a status report filed by senior advocate Aparna Bhatt, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the matter by the apex court to assist it. A bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala is likely to hear the case on Monday. In her 30-page report, Bhatt said that in the incident related to Sharda University, the FIR was registered by the parents and not by the university, and two persons named in the suicide note have been arrested. The report also said that postmortem revealed death by asphyxiation, and the investigation is ongoing and would be completed soon. In the detailed report, the amicus curiae gave a sequence of events and different versions of information available of the incident and pointed out that the immediate cause of concern was a complaint by faculty member Dr Mahinder Singh Chauhan that the deceased had forged the signatures of her teachers in the manual that documents the practical work and is monitored by the teachers with regard to progress made. "Upon further questioning, the university officials admitted that the warden did not call anyone – neither university authorities, nor the police or the hospital for an ambulance. The body was brought down by the security guards and carried out on a bedsheet by four hostel staff members. The warden eventually called the parents to tell them their daughter was in a serious condition in the emergency room ; it is assumed that other students had already informed the parents. "No call to the PCR was body was taken to a government hospital in Noida for PMR and later taken by the family for last rites. The family has not been in touch with the university or the police since then," the report said. The status report also gave the police version in which they claimed that a series of protocols to be followed in such cases were violated by the university staff. "The body has to be moved by the police, but the university staff took it upon themselves to do that. The scene was thus compromised because the warden entered and multiple people left fingerprints in the room. Secondly, the university hospital issued the medico-legal certificate to the police, which is also against protocol. However, the officers clarified, the MLC only mentioned that she had no pulse and so on, but no internal examination of the body was conducted by the university hospital," the report said. Similarly, Bhatt also gave the status of investigation in IIT-Kharagpur case where a fourth year mechanical engineering student allegedly committed suicide. The report said the FIR was registered by the university in which no one named as accused, postmortem contents are not known and investigation status is also not known as the police did not respond. The report said according to the information shared by the registrar, the deceased student had a good CGP and there was a slight dip in his grade in the last semester of third year but the same was not significant. Bhatt said despite repeated attempts, the police officer could not be contacted and hence the status of the investigation cannot be reported. "The Amicus is informed by the Registrar of IIT Kharagpur that a post mortem was conducted but they are not aware of the findings," the report said. On July 21, the top court took suo motu cognisance of the students' deaths in both these institutes and asked the amicus curiae to submit a status report with regard to the incidents. It had noted that a fourth year mechanical engineering student of the IIT, Kharagpur allegedly committed suicide three days after he returned to the institute after two-month summer break and was pursuing a five-year dual degree programme. The bench had also noted that it is the fourth unnatural death at the institute in the past seven months. Similarly, the top court had noted that in Sharda University a 21-year-old bachelor of dental surgery second-year student allegedly committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note. The bench said, "We would like to know how promptly the FIRs were registered in both the cases. We would also like to know who registered the FIRs. We would also like to know how promptly the management of the IIT, Kharagpur and Sharda University acted no sooner they learnt about the suicides. We would also like to know what has the preliminary investigation undertaken so far revealed in both the cases." The top court has taken serious note of students' suicide in institutions of higher learning, and in March set up a national task force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent such incidents. On July 14, it had asked for a status report from the police in three states on the investigation over the suicides by students of IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kharagpur and a NEET aspirant in Kota, Rajasthan. The top court in its March 24 verdict appointed former apex court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat as the chairperson of the NTF and said secretaries of a state's higher education department, social justice and empowerment and legal affairs apart from the ministry of women and child development would be its ex-officio members. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India.com
4 hours ago
- India.com
Udaipur Files Producer Amit Jani Granted Y-Category Security Amid Alleged Threats
New Delhi: Producer Amit Jani reportedly claimed that he had been receiving death threats on social media in connection with the upcoming release of Udaipur Files. Union Home Ministry Approves Y-Category Security In a new development, the Ministry of Home Affairs has extended Y-category security to Amit Jani. This comes amid mounting tensions and concerns over the film's impact and the threats reportedly received by its creators. The protection will be provided by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and will apply across Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. Producer Expresses Gratitude Taking to social media, Jani thanked the country's top leadership for ensuring his protection. In a tweet written in Hindi, he said: "केंद्र की Y श्रेणी सुरक्षा देने के लिए माननीय प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी और गृह मंत्री श्री अमित शाह जी का हार्दिक धन्यवाद" (Translation: "Heartfelt thanks to Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji and Home Minister Shri Amit Shah Ji for granting Y-category security.") केंद्र की Y श्रेणी सुरक्षा देने के लिए माननीय प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी जी और गृह मंत्री श्री अमित शाह जी का हार्दिक धन्यवाद@narendramodi @AmitShah @HMOIndia @PMOIndia — Amit Jani (@AmitJaniIND) July 27, 2025 Court Puts a Hold on Film's Release Originally slated for a July 11 release, the Delhi High Court on July 10 issued a stay order on the film, pending a decision by the Centre on multiple petitions. These petitions sought a permanent ban, citing the film's potential to 'promote disharmony' in society. Centre Recommends Edits According to an ANI report, a committee constituted by the central government, on directions from the Delhi High Court, has proposed six major modifications to the film. These include: Revised disclaimer: The original disclaimer is to be replaced with a new, government-approved version. Credit edits: Frames expressing gratitude to certain individuals must be removed. AI-generated execution scene: A scene resembling a Saudi-style execution created using AI must be altered. A scene resembling a Saudi-style execution created using AI must be altered. Name change for character 'Nutan Sharma': All references to this character must be replaced. All references to this character must be replaced. Dialogue deletion: The line attributed to Nutan Sharma, 'Mainetoh wohi kaha hai jo unke dharma grantho mein likha hai', must be removed. The line attributed to Nutan Sharma, 'Mainetoh wohi kaha hai jo unke dharma grantho mein likha hai', must be removed. Baloch community references: Dialogues concerning the Baloch community are to be eliminated. Earlier, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had mandated around 150 cuts in the film. Following these revisions, Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder was cleared for theatrical release on August 8, 2025. Starring Vijay Raaz in the lead role, the film was originally scheduled for release on July 11, 2025. However, it encountered multiple delays due to censorship issues and ongoing legal challenges. FAQs Q1. Why did Amit Jani receive Y-category security? Amit Jani was granted Y-category security after claiming he received threats over the film Udaipur Files. Q2. Why was the release of Udaipur Files delayed? The Delhi High Court stayed the release, citing concerns over the film's potential to promote social disharmony. Q3. How many cuts did CBFC demand in the film? The CBFC had ordered approximately 150 cuts before approving the film, as reported by IANS. Q4. When is Udaipur Files now scheduled to release? The film is slated for release on August 8, 2025.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex
The key objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is the protection of children, but over the past few years, courts around the country and rights activists have called for some exemptions. Noticing a trend that adolescents, above 15 years but under 18, in voluntary relationships and having consensual sex were often being persecuted, the courts sought a review. In that backdrop, senior advocate Indira Jaising's written submission to the Supreme Court that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16-18 years must not be criminalised is a welcome move. She was appointed amicus curiae and her submissions are part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Her brief challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent. She said the only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18, is not a form of 'abuse'. Ms. Jaising called for this exception to be read into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. In a 2023 report, the Law Commission had said that it was against changing the age of consent. It advised 'guided judicial discretion' instead, while sentencing in cases that involve children between 16 and 18 years in a voluntary, consensual relationship. Under the POCSO Act and under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the BNS, whoever commits a penetrative sexual assault on a child — who is anyone below 18 years — can face stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and provisions of the IPC and BNS. A 16-year-old is considered a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and hence her consent does not matter. But caveats have to be put in place so that the broad intent of the law is adhered to, as the Madras High Court suggested in 2021, in Vijayalakshmi vs State Rep. The High Court said the age difference in consensual relationships should not be more than five years to ensure that a girl of an impressionable age is not taken advantage of by an older person. Educating adolescents about the law on sexual offences and its consequences is a must too. Criminalising normal adolescent behaviour is not the way to protect against non-consensual, exploitative sexual offences.
