Udaipur Files producers move SC challenging Delhi HC stay order on release
A day before its release, the High Court blocked the film's release.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition filed by the makers.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the producers, told the court that the movie had already been approved by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and stopping its release is a violation of their fundamental rights.
ANI quoted Advocate Pulkit Agarwal saying, "We have requested the Supreme Court to cancel the Delhi High Court's order and allow the movie to be released. The court said it will take up the matter in the next 2-3 days."
Meanwhile, the stay on the film release will remain in place until the central government decides on a revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which challenges the CBFC's approval of the film.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal passed the interim order while hearing two petitions, one by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and another by journalist Prashant Tandon.
The petitioners argued that the release of the Udaipur Files could disturb communal harmony, posing a serious threat to public order, given the sensitive nature of the subject.
Udaipur Files is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was killed by two men allegedly angered by a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The incident had triggered national outrage.
The Court observed that since the petitioners had been relegated to invoke the revisional remedy under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the release of the film must remain stayed until a decision is made on their application for interim relief.
"We provide that till the grant of interim relief is decided, there shall be a stay on the release of the film," the bench said.
The petitioners also claimed that the film sensationalises the incident and may further inflame tensions. They also raised questions over the timing of the film release, just ahead of upcoming elections in several states across India.
The film stars Vijay Raaz, Rajneesh Duggal, and Preeti Jhangiani. It is directed by Bharat S. Shrinate and Jayant Sinha.
It is written by written by Amit Jani, Bharat Singh, and Jayant Sinha. Produced by Amit Jani, the film is distributed by Reliance Entertainment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
From Bang Si‑hyuk to Yang Hyun‑suk: Major K‑pop agencies & scandals involving their leaders
K-pop isn't only about the idols fans like; it's also about the powerful agencies that shape careers and create worldwide stars. While superstars get all the attention, the actual drama typically takes place behind the scenes. From internal tensions to major criminal charges, some agency chiefs have found themselves at the heart of controversy, with effects that can be felt by the artists themselves. Here's an overview of the top K-pop companies and the scandals that have engulfed its CEOs. HYBE (Home to BTS, SEVENTEEN, LE SSERAFIM) Bang Si-hyuk, founder and chairman, of the global conglomerate is currently under criminal investigation by South Korea's Financial Supervisory Service. He has been accused of fraudulent securities trading involving secret shareholder agreements worth approximately ₩400 billion (~$290 million) just before HYBE's 2020 IPO. The Financial Services Commission formally referred him to prosecutors. The company has also faced internal turmoil, most notably a public and legal conflict with Min Hee-jin, the former CEO of ADOR (a HYBE subsidiary), over creative control and alleged mistreatment of NewJeans members. This ongoing feud has further tarnished the company's leadership image. YG Entertainment (Home to BLACKPINK, BABYMONSTER) Yang Hyun-suk, YG's founder and previous CEO, resigned in 2019 after various controversies involving drug-related claims against his musicians. His most significant legal struggle ended in 2023, when he was convicted of coercing a trainee to recant their testimony in a drug case. In 2025, South Korea's Supreme Court upheld the 6-month suspended prison term, dealing a last legal and reputational blow to the agency's legacy. SM Entertainment (Home to EXO, aespa, NCT) Lee Soo-man, SM's founder and former executive producer, has been embroiled in numerous financial and ethical scandals over the years. He formally left as chief producer in 2023, but has since founded A2O Entertainment, which focuses on global talent development. Nonetheless, his scandals continue to haunt him. He was convicted of embezzlement and stock manipulation in the early 2000s, but was later pardoned by the president. He was also accused of funneling billions of won to his private company, Like Planning, which raised severe conflicts of interest problems. Lee was identified in the Pandora Papers for allegedly diverting international revenues through offshore shell businesses such as CT Planning Ltd. In 2023, he became the focal point of a power struggle between Kakao and SM's management during the company's restructuring and ownership dispute. JYP Entertainment (Home to TWICE, Stray Kids, ITZY) Park Jin-young (JYP), the company's founder and creative director, has mainly avoided legal controversies, but he has experienced controversy. In 2011, he faced a plagiarism case for the song "Someday," which was first declared in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in 2015, citing a lack of significant musical similarities. He also faced allegations of involvement with the Salvation Sect in the Sewol ferry disaster, which he openly refuted. Not only that, but he was criticized by artists such as Sunmi (former Wonder Girls) for wielding excessive creative control and restricting artistic expression. Rumours circulated in 2014 that he attempted to sell JYP Entertainment to YG, however both firms refuted this. Attrakt (Agency of FIFTY FIFTY) CEO Jeon Hong-joon made news in 2023 when girl group FIFTY FIFTY sought an injunction to suspend their exclusive contracts, charging financial mismanagement and medical malpractice. The court finally found in favor of Attrakt, prompting Jeon to cancel the members' contracts and file criminal and civil cases against the idols and their production business for alleged fraud and poaching. Member Keena eventually dropped her complaint and reconnected with the agency. Since then, Attrakt has reorganized FIFTY FIFTY with new members and is gearing up for a comeback, including a U.S. tour. Konnect Entertainment (Founded by Kang Daniel) The agency, previously seen as a model for self-managed idols, was forced to close in 2024 when its key shareholder was accused of fabricating paperwork and unlawfully signing ₩10 billion contracts under Kang Daniel's name. The stockholder is still under investigation. TS Entertainment & Media Line (Known for groups like B.A.P) TS Entertainment, which managed groups such as B.A.P. and SECRET, was sued many times for unfair contracts and artist mistreatment before quietly ceasing operations. The CEO of Media Line Entertainment was convicted of child abuse in 2019 for physically and emotionally torturing members of the boy band The East Light. He was sentenced to six years in prison, underscoring the harsh treatment that some trainees experience in the profession. For all the latest K-drama, K-pop, and Hallyuwood updates, keep following our coverage here.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Death in riots: Delhi HC seeks police reply on plea
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the city police on a plea moved by Mohd Khalid, an accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots case that led to the death of head constable Ratan Lal. Justice Shalinder Kaur, on July 14, directed the police to file their response before the next hearing scheduled for October 14. The prosecution also reserved its right to argue on the maintainability of the petition. Khalid was arrested in June 2023 after being named as an accused in the fifth supplementary chargesheet filed in the case. He was granted bail in September last year. The trial court had, in November 2023, framed charges against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 148, 186, 188, 302 (murder), 323, 325, 332, 333, 353, 427, and 435, as well as Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Challenging the framing of charges, Khalid's plea argues that there is no prima facie evidence or material on record that establishes his involvement or a direct nexus with the alleged offences. He contends that even if the allegations and witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are presumed true, they still do not make him liable. The FIR registered at Dayalpur Police Station, contains serious allegations against him. It states that around 1pm on the day of the incident, a mob carrying lathis, baseball bats, iron rods, and stones assembled on the main Wazirabad Road and turned violent, ignoring warnings by senior police officers. The FIR mentions that protestors attacked police personnel, including DCP Shahdara, ACP Gokulpuri and Head Constable Ratan Lal. All three fell on the road during the attack and sustained grievous injuries. While several officers were injured, Ratan Lal succumbed to his injuries. DCP Shahdara was found unconscious with serious head injuries. Advocates RHA Sikander, Mohd. Hasan, and Heema appeared for Khalid. SPP Ashish Dutta and Advocate Mayank represented the Delhi police. The matter is scheduled to be be heard next on October 14.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Fake permission': Delhi forest dept to Supreme Court on tree felling in Ridge area; forged document used for Vasant Kunj housing project
NEW DELHI: The Delhi forest department has informed the Supreme Court that a 'fake permission' was fraudulently issued in the name of the deputy conservator of forests, allowing tree felling in the ecologically sensitive Ridge area of Vasant Kunj for a housing project. The disclosure came in an affidavit submitted in response to a petition filed by environmental activist Bhavreen Kandhari. The plea alleges that the land falls within a morphological ridge protected under the Supreme Court's May 9, 1996 order, which mandates prior permission for any tree felling or land diversion. "It is pertinent to mention that it had come to the attention of the answering respondent that a fake permission was issued for tree felling in the name of the office of the deputy conservator of forests/tree officer West Forest Division, which was found issued to Rakesh Kumar Sharma...," the affidavit stated. The affidavit, filed by the deputy conservator of forests (West Division), said a letter was written on December 13 to the Station House Officer of Vasant Kunj Police Station, seeking registration of an FIR over the alleged forgery. According to the forest department, the assistant sub-inspector handling the FIR later responded that the forged document was illegible, the location could not be traced, and the accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma denied any wrongdoing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Casa Maquista chefs explore turmeric's essence in Macanese cuisine. MGTO Undo "The assistant sub-inspector has requested an original copy of the forged permission to process the matter further; otherwise, the complaint shall be closed. It is pertinent to mention that the same issue is sought by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)... and the intimation of the same has already been sent on March 3, 2025," the affidavit added. The forest officer also informed the court that on March 13, 2025, he replied to the SHO, stating that the copy of the alleged forged permission shared earlier was the only one available with the department. The petition further alleges that despite no court approval, construction activities were carried out on the disputed land for residential buildings. The petitioner claimed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had sanctioned the building plans and that 'officials of the Forest Department, GNCTD and the Ridge Management Board took no action to prevent the said activity or stop the same.' The Ridge area in Delhi, known for its ecological significance, is divided into five zones: Northern Ridge, Central Ridge, South Central Ridge, Southern Ridge, and Nanakpura South Central Ridge. The Supreme Court and other authorities have issued multiple orders for its protection over the years. On May 7, the apex court issued a show-cause notice to relevant authorities, questioning why contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated for the alleged violation of its 1996 order. The matter is scheduled to be heard on July 21 by a bench led by Justice Surya Kant.
