' Udaipur Files ' Producers Move Supreme Court To Challenge High Court Stay Order
Uncertainty over the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' continues as the producers have moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court, which ordered a stay, while the petitioners against the release today presented their case before the Centre.
The Supreme Court will be hearing the matter tomorrow. Meanwhile, the petitioners today gave a representation to the Centre over the stay on the film's release. The petitioners told NDTV that they have requested the Centre to lift the interim stay
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the filmmakers, appealed for an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order.
Mr Bhatia told the court that the theatres were set to screen the film on Friday, but the court stayed the release on Thursday at 8 PM.
The petitioners had contended before the high court that the sole purpose of the film is to vilify one particular (Muslim) community, and it is the worst form of hate speech.
Only 12 hours were left for the release of the movie when the ban was issued, he told the court. He further informed the court that a partial working day bench of the top court has refused to grant an urgent hearing to stay the release and yet the high court stayed the release.
The Delhi High Court last week had stayed the release of the movie till Monday, which is said to be based on the brutal murder of a tailor from Udaipur over a post he shared on social media.
While directing the Centre to decide the matter in one week, the high court said that the petitioners can also press the Centre for further stay beyond Monday.
The high court, while granting a stay, noted that the producer's reply included an admission that a teaser of the movie was released without certification. "It is thus apparent that the producer has admitted uploading a teaser which contained even portions of the film that were ordered to be taken down," the bench said.
The court noted that the producer's reply included an admission that a teaser of the movie was released without certification. "It is thus apparent that the producer has admitted uploading a teaser which contained even portions of the film that were ordered to be taken down," the bench said.
It was observed that a trailer was certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on July 2 with cuts from the teaser, which was uploaded on June 26. The film was cleared by the board for screening on June 20.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
Rajasthan man, 53, to be tried as juvenile for raping minor 37 years ago
Thirty-seven years after raping an 11-year-old girl in Rajasthan's Ajmer, a man, now nearly 53, was declared a juvenile by the Supreme Court. The court upheld the conviction but sent the case to a Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing under the Juvenile Justice incident occurred in November 1988 when the victim was raped while fetching water at her school. The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, reviewed school records showing the convict was born in 1972, making him 16 years and 2 months old at the time. advertisementThe court set aside the previous five-year jail sentence and directed that the punishment follow the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 which limits penalties to three years in a juvenile home. As the convict is now 53, legal experts suggest he may face alternative penalties like community service. He has already served one year in jail during the court noted the issue of juvenility was not raised during the trial or High Court proceedings. It was brought up for the first time in the Supreme Court appeal. In January 2025, the court ordered Rajasthan authorities to verify the convict's age. A report from the Additional Sessions Judge in Ajmer confirmed his 1972 birth year based on school bench said that juvenility can be raised at any stage even after the case has been resolved. The conviction was upheld based on the victim's statement, supported by witness testimonies and medical evidence. The court stated that a credible victim statement alone can be sufficient for conviction in sexual offense cases and there will be no need further corroboration.- Ends
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Important cases heard by Supreme Court on July 24
Important cases heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday, : Important cases heard by Supreme Court on July 24 * SC stayed the Bombay HC verdict acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bomb blasts case but said they need not return to jail. * SC called the Karnataka HC's decision to grant bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case a "perverse exercise' of discretionary power. * SC expressed the possibility of remanding on July 25 the matter over the stay of movie "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" back to the high court. * SC agreed to examine a plea seeking contempt action against Assam government authorities for allegedly violating the top court directives during its demolition exercise in Goalpara district. * SC agreed to list a batch of pleas questioning the delay on the part of the central government in appointment of judges after the collegium reiterated their names. * SC agreed to hear on July 28 a plea questioning whether BS VI-compliant vehicles should have an end-of-life period of 15 years for petrol variants and 10 years for diesel variants in the National Capital Region. * SC agreed to hear on July 28 a plea of West Bengal government against the Calcutta HC decision staying the new list of other backward classes . * SC agreed to hear next week a plea challenging the appointment of Jharkhand DGP Anurag Gupta claiming the due process was not followed. * SC dismissed a plea alleging bogus voting registration, saying the court's PIL jurisdiction was being "misused and abused". * SC dismissed a plea to appoint an expert committee to conduct a comprehensive study on the adverse impact of direct cash benefit, freebies and other state-sponsored schemes * SC dismissed a plea to ensure installation of six airbags in passenger vehicles and said the matter was exclusively within the policy domain. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Mumbai man arrested after neighbour films him performing ‘indecent act with hen'
A 45-year-old man has been arrested in Mumbai for allegedly indulging in indecent acts with a pet hen and sexually harassing a minor boy by showing him pornographic content. The accused, Rajendra Rahate, has been arrested in the Borivali area of Mumbai.(PTI) The accused, Rajendra Rahate, has been arrested in the Borivali area of Mumbai. The incident occurred late on Tuesday, July 22, when his neighbour saw him indulging in indecent acts with a hen in his room. The man then started recording it on his mobile phone, news agency PTI reported. Also Read: Maharashtra challenges acquittal of Mumbai train blasts accused in Supreme Court The neighbour's 10-year-old son later told him that the accused had shown him pornographic content on his phone on multiple occasions from 2021 and warned him against telling his parents. Following this, the neighbour filed a complaint and the police called Rahate for questioning and later placed him under arrest. Police officials said they arrested Rahate for allegedly indulging in indecent acts with one of his pet hens, and also found that he had sexually harassed a neighbour's minor son by showing pornographic content to him in the past. Also Read: 'Didn't know I was burying my brother': Tragic details emerge in Mumbai murder The sleuths registered a case against him under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on the charge of sexually harassing the boy. "The angle of animal cruelty is also being investigated to add more charges against the accused. Committing an unnatural act with any animal leads to cruelty, which is also a violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act," the official added.
