Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Hear Case Against 'Udaipur Files' On Monday
The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Delhi High Court to hear the petitions challenging the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' – which has been accused of promoting communalism – on Monday (July 28).
The movie is based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was killed in June 2022. Islamic scholar Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the murder case, moved the apex court against the release of the movie, saying it spreads hatred against Muslims and was deeply communal in nature.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi asked the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court after the Central government allowed the movie release after certain modifications.
'First, go to HC and pursue, and then come here. Now the other side says he [movie producer] is satisfied with the central government order, and he does not want to pursue the case here. So you go to HC now. Why waste our time?" the bench said.
This came after a petition seeking the release of the movie was filed by movie producers against a Delhi High Court order that stayed the release of the movie and asked the Central government to review it first. The Supreme Court allowed the government to review the film, and a panel appointed by the government asked producers to make certain changes before release.
However, the government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the film is 'crime-focused" and does not target any specific community. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the dialogues are generic and references to terrorism are context-specific.
The movie revolves around the accused in the case, Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, who allegedly murdered and beheaded Lal over a social media post he shared supporting a former BJP leader.
The killing, carried out in broad daylight, had sparked national outrage. However, Madani had argued that the film unfairly extrapolates that crime to project an entire community as complicit or sympathetic to terrorism.
The trial continues in the Special NIA Court, with hearings set to resume after the court's summer break.
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
12 minutes ago
- The Print
Bihar voter list revision is not anti-democratic—India can't let illegals influence polls
Before going into the question of whether or not the exercise is asking for too much documentation in too short a time in order to establish the legitimacy of voters on the list, we must deal with the two-faced politics of it first. The exercise is legitimate in itself, for it is the Election Commission's (EC) job to ensure that citizens eligible to vote are included in the voters' list, and those who are not Indian citizens are excluded. One can object to how quickly it is being done, but there is no case whatsoever to object to the SIR per se . West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has turned it into a Bengali vs non-Bengali issue. She knows that what happens in Bihar may sooner or later happen in Bengal too, which will have assembly elections next year. Banerjee is very dependent on a consolidated Muslim vote to get her Trinamool Congress over the finish line. Some NDA allies, including the Telugu Desam Party, without opposing the SIR exercise outright, have also expressed concerns about its goals. The Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar—due for assembly elections in a few months—has raised hackles mostly among Opposition politicians. They believe that it is a covert exercise to remove minority voters from the voters' list in order to benefit the BJP and the NDA. So, when the Telugu Desam Party says that the SIR exercise should not be a way to determine citizenship, it is right in a technical sense, but not quite. The EC cannot determine citizenship, but it has the right to know whether someone on the voters' list is a citizen or not. Opposition's mala fide intention The EC says that 99.8 per cent of electors have already been covered in the SIR (till 25 July), and just 1.2 lakh voters have not submitted their forms/documents. That's a very small percentage of missing forms. What may be of concern is the likely exclusion of nearly 64-65 lakh voters currently on the list, which is just under nine per cent of the total. But the EC's numbers do indicate why so many may be excluded unless they prove otherwise. Of the proposed deletions from the draft electoral roll, 22 lakh are deceased, 35 lakh are out-migrants who may have shifted permanently out of Bihar, and another 7 lakh had their names in multiple state voter lists. All the parties likely to contest in the state have been given the list of likely exclusions, and they have till 1 August to raise objections. Nothing sounds unfair, except for the tight deadlines. If the Opposition boycotts the polls over the SIR issue, it will be acting with mala fide intention. It cannot be anyone's case that people who live elsewhere must be on Bihar's voter list, or that the dead should be represented by fraudulent impostors voting in their names, or that people registered in multiple states should be allowed to vote in Bihar, too, unless those other states first delete their names. No political party will admit to it, but each one wants to see that its potential voters are not excluded. They may have no problems with the other exclusions and deletions. The Opposition parties, which rely heavily on the Muslim vote in Bihar and West Bengal, are not keen to see Bangladeshi citizens who may have gotten into our voters' lists excluded. The BJP in West Bengal, on the other hand, would not like to see the same citizenship scrutiny being imposed on Hindu Bangladeshis, though many of them may be living in West Bengal due to persecution in Bangladesh. Since all non-NDA Opposition parties seem united in demanding a cancellation of Bihar's SIR, it's safe to assume they fear their own vote bank stands to lose the most. Two arguments are being made against SIR: The exercise has given voters too little time, and it does not accept widely available documents like Aadhaar. Second, it is undemocratic to exclude so many voters on the suspicion that they may not be Indian citizens. The rushed deadline is a valid complaint, but when Mamata Banerjee—who will contest in the Bengal assembly polls next year—also raises the same issue, the argument loses much of its force. As for non-use of Aadhaar, it was never intended to be proof of citizenship. The EC seems to have done most of the job already, and, if needed, can give political parties an additional week or two to raise objections to the exclusions. The second argument is patently wrong, for it is the EC's job to see that non-citizens are not allowed to vote in India. As long as no eligible voter is excluded, it cannot be blamed. To ensure the latter, all political parties have been given the opportunity to re-insert names they think have been unfairly removed from the draft list. Even after the draft is published on 1 August, voters have time till the end of the month to make corrections. That said, one must point out that voters' lists are not foolproof because the EC does not have enough full-time staff to keep lists updated year-round in all states. Its work begins more or less a few months ahead of a general or state election, and most of the work is done by state officials under the EC's overall direction. Most states will not spare staff a year ahead of elections to do this job of filtering out ineligible voters and adding new ones. Also read: A year after Bangladesh's Monsoon Revolution, a parched summer looms ahead Case of Bangladeshi, Pakistani citizens The truth is not just SIR, but the compilation of a regularly-updated National Register of Citizens (NRC) would be an equally legitimate exercise. But as the Assam NRC showed, such an exercise would force Hindus who may have fled persecution in Bangladesh or Pakistan to be struck off the rolls and denied citizenship rights, too. The Assam NRC used not just documents, but family trees to determine citizenship. The politics of SIR or NRC involves two separate questions: one is about citizenship and the eligibility to vote. The other—unstated—issue is the demographic challenge in eastern border states of West Bengal, Assam, Jharkhand, and Bihar, which have been quietly settled by Muslims as well as Hindus from Bangladesh. The BJP view—which I agree with—is that we cannot treat illegals who may be persecuted in Bangladesh in the same way as those who are merely coming here for livelihoods. The Modi government tried to partially signal this differentiation through the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, but the cutoff date for fast-tracking citizenship for eligible minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan was 31 December 2014, which made the exercise minimalist. Useful for political signalling, but of no real help to the lakhs of Bangladeshi minorities seeking to flee persecution even today. The only logical way out for the BJP is to enact a 'right to return' law for Hindus and minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh—much like the one Israel has for Jews living outside Israel. In India's case, it would mean offering minorities in our neighbouring countries the right to enter India and seek fast-track citizenship. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to persecute their minorities, and do not want to give Hindus equal rights on a par with Muslims. By no stretch of imagination can the reduction in Bangladesh's Hindu population from 22 per cent in 1951 to less than eight per cent in the last census be called anything other than steady ethnic cleansing through coercion and intimidation. The demographic challenge is particularly acute in India's east and north-east, where several districts are now Muslim majority, and others are showing a steadily rising share of Muslims. This is what drove Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma to clearly state what the real issue is. In posts made over the last few days on X (formerly Twitter), Sarma made statements that no politician has previously dared to make. Sanjay Hegde, a lawyer, noted that it was not right to equate all Bengali Muslims with Bangladeshi Muslims. He wrote: 'Not every Bengali-speaking Muslim in Assam is a Bangladeshi. The history and geography of Assam and undivided Bengal are far too complex for such lazy thinking.' To which Sarma replied boldly, avoiding political correctness. While agreeing with Hegde that the issue was complex, Samra was crystal clear in identifying the problem for what it was: the steady change in religious demography. 'Legally, all of them may not be foreigners. But we, the people of Assam—especially Hindus—are becoming a hopeless minority in our own land. All this has happened over a span of just 60 years. We have lost our culture, our land, our temples. The law gives us no remedy. That's why we are desperate—not for revenge, but for survival. Yes, we may be fighting a losing battle. But we will go down fighting—with dignity, within the law, and for the soul of our Assam. Do not stop us. Just do not stop us from fighting for what is ours. For us, this is our last battle of survival,' he wrote on X. Thus far, no Opposition politician has given Sarma any kind of evidence-based rebuttal. In response to Mamata Banerjee's attempt to convert the issue into a Bengali-non-Bengali one, Sarma was even bolder in his assertions. 'Didi, let me remind you. In Assam, we are not fighting our own people. We are fearlessly resisting the ongoing, unchecked Muslim infiltration from across the border, which has already caused an alarming demographic shift. In several districts, Hindus are now on the verge of becoming a minority in their own land. This is not a political narrative – it's a reality. Even the Supreme Court of India has termed such infiltration as external aggression. And yet, when we rise to defend our land, culture, and identity, you choose to politicise it.' Courage, maybe. But constitutional clarity is needed, and this can only come if persecuted minorities in our neighbourhood have the right to come to India and settle legally. Ideally, this process should happen through a well-thought-out NRC, and not only through SIR, but both processes have their legitimacy. The political tensions will continue well into the West Bengal and Assam elections next year. The question is: even if minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh are given a legal right to return to India, what happens to those who are found to be illegal immigrants, especially Muslims? Will Bangladesh take them back when it has avoided even acknowledging the problem? Any clear determination on whether a Bengali is Indian or Bangladeshi needs Dhaka's cooperation. In the current situation, where the interim Mohammad Yunus government, backed by Islamists, is inherently hostile to India, such cooperation seems unlikely. They can be given the right to work, while being denied the vote. This right to work cannot be indefinite, but it is needed as an interim measure so that India need not deport non-citizens as soon as they are identified. It will also be more humane. Additionally, we can use technology to determine who may not be an Indian national. We can use AI and regional dialect recognition patterns to figure out if someone is from a district in India or Bangladesh. What we cannot do is allow non-persecuted Bangladeshi Muslims to change the demography in the border states when sources close to Mohammad Yunus are already talking about Greater Bangladesh and the takeover of India's north-eastern states. Yunus himself has talked about Bangladesh holding the key to India's north-east. So, far from being a needless exercise, SIR must precede every state or general election. It would help if EC could draw on a painstakingly compiled and regularly updated NRC. No serious nation can afford to compromise its borders or allow ineligible foreigners to influence local politics. R Jagannathan is the former editorial director, Swarajya magazine. He tweets @TheJaggi. Views are personal.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC to take up SIR today: 35 lakh voters untraceable, opposition mounts pressure on govt – controversy explained in 10 points
NEW DELHI: A political and legal battle is underway over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. What was intended as a technical exercise to improve the accuracy of voter lists has escalated into a flashpoint in both Parliament and the Supreme Court, with opposition parties alleging disenfranchisement and voter fraud, while the poll body insists it is a necessary step to uphold electoral integrity. The Supreme Court is set to hear a petition today challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, as the Opposition intensifies its attack on the government over the exercise. Led by the Congress, opposition parties have accused the Centre of using the revision process to target voters just months before the state heads to elections. The row over SIR has gained fresh momentum in Parliament as well, with protests disrupting proceedings of the House over the past week. Here is the controversy explained in 10 points: What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)? The Election Commission of India (ECI) launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar on June 24. As per the centre, the objective was to update and clean up the electoral roll through house-to-house verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). The last such exercise in the state was conducted in 2003. With Bihar undergoing rapid urbanisation, youth enrolment, and internal migration, the ECI said the revision was crucial for ensuring accurate rolls ahead of state elections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Experts Urge Seniors With Memory Loss To Take This Key Nutrient Daily Memory Health Learn More Undo Why SIR became a flashpoint in Parliament While the Monsoon session was set to debate Operation Sindoor, the SIR exercise quickly became a parallel point of contention. INDIA bloc MPs have submitted multiple notices demanding a discussion on the matter, alleging that the SIR was being used to remove genuine voters from rolls. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju clarified that the Operation Sindoor debate would take priority, pushing SIR-related discussions to a later date — a decision that drew strong reactions from the Opposition. Supreme Court steps in The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the SIR. Petitioners argue that the exercise lacks legal safeguards and risks disenfranchising large swathes of the population. The lead petitioner, NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), claimed the exercise is "arbitrary" and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court has also questioned the exclusion of Aadhaar and ration cards as valid ID for voter verification. Massive participation or mass fraud? According to the EC, the SIR saw over 7.24 crore of Bihar's 7.89 crore electors participate, a turnout rate of nearly 92%. However, multiple affidavits and field reports challenge this figure, suggesting enumeration forms were uploaded en masse by BLOs without voter consent. ADR and other petitioners claimed that even dead people were shown to have submitted forms, raising concerns of systemic fraud to meet internal targets. 35 lakh voters untraceable In its latest press note dated July 27, the Election Commission clarified the status of the 35 lakh voters flagged as missing. According to the ECI, many were found to have moved to other states or union territories, some were deceased, others did not submit their enumeration forms, and a few were simply not willing to register. The Commission emphasised that their exact status will be confirmed only after scrutiny by EROs and AEROs by 1 August. Importantly, all genuine electors can still be added during the claims and objections period starting 1 August. Online, SMS, and volunteer outreach used to reach every voter Over 5.7 crore SMSes were sent to registered mobile numbers, 29 lakh forms were submitted digitally, and BLOs made multiple home visits. Volunteers also assisted senior citizens, PwDs, and vulnerable groups in accessing forms and filing appeals, with training provided for redressal mechanisms. Claims and objections window opens August 1 The EC has said that no name will be deleted without a 'speaking order' and due notice. The draft rolls will be published on August 1, and electors or parties can file claims or objections till September 1. Appeals can be made to the District Magistrate or CEO if needed. EC says all major political parties consulted In a detailed affidavit to the Supreme Court, the ECI defended the SIR as essential for removing ineligible voters and ensuring free and fair elections. Citing Articles 326 and provisions of the Representation of People Act, the Commission insisted it was fulfilling its constitutional duty. EC also claimed all major political parties were consulted and that over 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents were deployed. However, the ADR contested that no political party had asked for a complete overhaul. From Bihar to the nation: A wider SIR looms In its June 24 directive, the ECI announced that SIR will eventually be conducted nationwide. With 96.88 crore voters in India, even a small error rate could affect millions. ANI said the findings in Bihar have heightened concerns about systemic issues that could emerge in other states, especially where similar migration patterns exist. The draft electoral rolls will be published on August 1, with a window for objections open until September 1. Concerns about due process and transparency Critics say the SIR is being conducted in a way that violates procedural fairness. ADR's affidavit to the court alleged that forms were submitted by BLOs without physical verification, and that there were no proper channels for redress. The EC has argued that appeals can be made under Section 24 of the RP Act, but complainants say awareness and accessibility are limited. With conflicting narratives and high stakes, the SIR has now evolved from a bureaucratic exercise to a national controversy.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court to review Delhi's old vehicle ban today: What's the policy and why was it paused?
The Supreme Court will review the controversial ban on older petrol and diesel vehicles in the National Capital Region (NCR) on Monday. The hearing follows a plea by the Delhi government, challenging the blanket ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years, arguing the restrictions lack scientific backing. The Delhi government rolled out the 'No fuel for old vehicles' policy on July 1, but it was paused within two days.(AFP) A bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran will take up the matter. One of the most pertinent questions to be answered from the hearing is whether Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) compliant vehicles should still face arbitrary end-of-life restrictions based solely on age. The Delhi government's plea seeks a comprehensive study by the Centre and CAQM to assess the actual environmental benefits of age-based restrictions versus emission-based criteria. What's the ban? The current ban traces back to a 2015 order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which prohibited diesel vehicles older than 10 years and Petrol vehicles older than 15 years. "The vehicles which are more than 15 years old will not be permitted to be parked in any public area, and they shall be towed away and challenged by the police in accordance with the law. This direction would be applicable to all vehicles without exception, i.e. two wheelers, three wheelers, four wheelers, light vehicles and heavy vehicles, irrespective of whether commercial or otherwise," the NGT said in its November 26, 2014, order. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling in 2018, citing alarming air pollution levels in Delhi-NCR and a need to protect public health. In line with this, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) directed that fuel stations stop supplying petrol and diesel to these "end-of-life" vehicles from July 1, 2025. Why was the policy paused? The Delhi government, under chief minister Rekha Gupta, rolled out the 'No fuel for old vehicles' policy on July 1, 2025, but it was paused within two days after facing public backlash. The government then cited logistical hurdles and infrastructure gaps, especially in identifying and enforcing the ban effectively. Delhi environment minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa said last week that pollution levels of vehicles should be determined based on their usage rather than their age, ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the End-of-Life (EoL) vehicle policy. "There are many vehicles that have aged, but because they haven't been used much, their pollution levels are lower. There are so many new vehicles whose age is less but have been used a lot; so we believe that the parameter to determine pollution levels must be the use of the vehicle instead of its age," Sirsa told news agency ANI.
