Controversy may help film's performance: Top court defers 'Udaipur Files' hearing
The court said it would await the outcome of the proceedings before the Centre and posted the matter to next Monday, July 21. "We expect that the committee constituted by the Centre will hear the matter immediately, without any loss of time."The court allowed Javed, who was not a petitioner before the Delhi High Court, to appear before the committee. "We also permit Mohd Javed, as petitioner, to appear before the committee." The committee hearing was scheduled for 2:30 PM on Wednesday.At the time of writing, the meeting of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting committee was underway, with representatives of the filmmaker, a representative of Kanhaiya Lal's son, members of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and the lawyer for the accused Mohammad Javed in attendance.Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Mohammad Javed, said the film dealt with two sub judice matters - the Kanhaiya Lal murder case and the Gyanvapi case."The movie portrays the judiciary as well in a certain way. The movie is bordering on hate, and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. There is much at stake. They can't claim free speech to violate fair trial or lower judiciary's reputation."She said, "It is something that generates violence. It's vilification of a community. Not one positive aspect about the community shown."Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani, said, "When HC asked us, I personally saw the movie. I was shaken in every sense of the word. If any judge were to see it, they will be shocked. Its complete theme is of hate against the community... Not one positive aspect about the community shown... homosexuality, judicial matters, treatment of women... A democratic nation certifying such movie... unimaginable.""I had watched the movie... It's a thematic dissertation of hate... I am normally on the other side to say it should not be stopped... Please see the movie. It is something that generates violence-seeds violence-it's vilification of an entire community-violence, hate, homosexuality, denigration of women, child abuse by one community-unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow such a movie to be certified," Sibal added.Justice Kant responded, "Our judicial officers are not school-going children that they can be swayed by movie dialogues... absolutely confident about their objectivity... sense of detachment." He also said, "I was wondering how Mr Sibal found time to see the movie."advertisementSenior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the producers, told the court, "I got a valid certificate from CBFC... they didn't go to the valid authority... went to the High Court on the last date without even disclosing legitimate interest."He said, "My film was supposed to release at midnight. The order came at 8 pm. Nearly 1,750 theatres across India had booked the movie. We lost six crucial days."He also submitted that "the producer and director of the film as well as the son of the victim who was brutally murdered in 2022 are getting repeated threats to their life." The court directed the police to assess the threat perception and take steps to protect them.Justice Kant said, "Balance of convenience is in their favor... if movie is released, it can lead to irreparable loss... but if there is delay, you can be compensated." The court noted that Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act gave the central government the power to suspend or revoke certification.advertisementThe court observed, "If the film is released then both these pleas are infructuous... the revision petition before the government is also infructuous."It added, "We have impressed on the counsels for the parties to join the proceedings before the government committee and extend their cooperation for speedy disposal."The Delhi High Court had earlier said, "The high court vide impugned judgment has not expressed any opinion on the merits, especially regarding the allegations regarding content of the movie." The order was passed in a batch of pleas, including one filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, who contended that the film was communally divisive.Kanhaiya Lal Teli, an Udaipur-based tailor, was murdered in June 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, who claimed it was in retaliation for a social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma. The case was taken up by the National Investigation Agency and is under trial before a special NIA court in Jaipur. The film is based on these events.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Cabinet rejects proposed sites for new nuclear power plant in Karnataka
1 2 3 Bengaluru: The cabinet has rejected three proposed sites for a new nuclear power plant in the state and directed National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) to conduct a statewide study to identify a suitable location. NTPC had shortlisted a site each in Koppal, Raichur, and Vijayapura districts for the project but these have been shot down. Despite the rejection of sites, the cabinet agreed on the need for a nuclear power plant in the state, aligning with the Centre's renewed push for nuclear energy. Law and parliamentary affairs minister HK Patil said there were "several reasons" for the cabinet's decision but did not elaborate. "They [NTPC] must study all possible alternatives," he said. "We have decided to let them study the whole state and submit a report with a viable alternative." You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru During a preliminary inspection as part of the initial assessment previously, NTPC officials had met with stiff opposition from villagers at proposed sites in Koppal, Vijayapura, and Raichur districts. Locals had raised concerns over environmental and safety impacts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo In the 2024 Union Budget, the Centre laid strong emphasis on nuclear power as a key pillar of India's long-term energy transition. It set an ambitious target of achieving 100 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2047, aiming to significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuels. NTPC is now expected to conduct a comprehensive study of potential locations across Karnataka and submit a fresh proposal to the state govt. The cabinet formally received the report of the Justice John Michael D'Cunha one-man inquiry commission investigating the June 4 stampede at Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium, which claimed 11 lives. However, a decision on the report was put off to the next cabinet meeting. The two-volume report was handed over to chief minister Siddaramaiah on July 11, following a detailed probe into the incident during Royal Challengers Bengaluru's IPL victory celebrations. The event saw a massive public turnout which led to a tragic stampede. "We will study and discuss the report at the next cabinet meeting, and we will communicate to you [media] decisions thereafter," Patil said Asked about findings or recommendations in the report, Patil said: "It is not known. It was the last subject at today's meeting." The govt constituted the commission to fix responsibility for the stampede and suggest measures to prevent such tragedies in future.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Illegal content on X endangers democracy, says government
Elon Musk (File photo) NEW DELHI: The Centre told Karnataka high court Thursday that allowing the proliferation of unlawful content on social media in the name of free speech endangered democracy, and accused Elon Musk-owned X of attempting to escape accountability by taking shelter under the IT Act's 'safe harbour' protection. Questioning the US-based company's locus standi to move an Indian HC for protection of fundamental rights, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the constitutional protection to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must not be misunderstood as absolute protection for unlawful content. 'Constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights,' it said. 'Safe harbour' not an absolute right, but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties: Govt It said the 'safe harbour' provision, which protects social media platforms from liability for content posed by their users, was a privilege available only to those internet intermediaries which were responsible. X had moved HC seeking to restrain govt departments from taking coercive action against it and its officials for the content on the microblogging site and said, 'Unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate. The issuance of information blocking orders without following due process of law, and in violation of IT Act and the Constitution, violates X's right to equality under Article 14 and detrimentally impacts its business. ' In written submissions before HC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said, 'Proliferation of what can be termed as unlawful content on social media platforms poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.' 'Social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities,' the law officer said. Advent of the internet, social media and digital intermediaries had fundamentally altered the character and scale of human communication, demanding a re-examination and suitable tailoring of constitutional standards, Mehta said, adding India's internet subscriber base had grown from 25 crore in 2013-14 to 97 crore in Sept 2024. The govt's stand that 'safe harbour' does not mean blanket immunity can have implications for all social media platforms. This also rhymes with the growing call for repeal of Section 230 of US's Communications Decency Act from which social media giants derive the immunity. The Centre said 'safe harbour' protection for internet intermediaries was not an unconditional entitlement but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties. While committing to full protection of the right to free speech, the govt said, 'The question raised by X cannot be examined merely from the prism of the person using this medium. 'The concept of 'safe harbour' inherently includes rigorous responsibilities, requiring intermediaries to promptly and effectively remove or disable unlawful content upon receiving notice. These safeguards are deliberately designed to balance innovation with accountability, ensuring intermediaries do not become platforms for unlawful activities.' The govt said X's attempt was to present 'safe harbour' as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties. 'Such a stand fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection. 'Safe harbour' is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct,' it said. It told HC that X had confused itself with the play of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act. It said Section 69A pertains explicitly to govt orders for blocking content with serious penal consequences for non-compliance whereas Section 79 deals with due diligence obligations to maintain 'safe harbour' protection. The Centre said X purposefully blurred the clear distinction to escape accountability for its statutory duties. It said social media platforms use 'amplification' mechanisms to push visibility of a particular type of view. 'The algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content, shaping public opinion and significantly influencing social harmony or disorder. This active role demands heightened accountability, necessitating robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media,' the Centre further said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Online curation systems unlike newspapers: Govt on safe harbour call
Defending its decision to lower the 'safe harbour' protections for Internet intermediaries and social media platforms and remove content through the Sahyog Portal, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court Thursday that algorithmic curation systems fundamentally differ from editorial processes in traditional media. 'Unlike a newspaper editor's conscious judgment or a TV producer's schedule, these automated decisions occur at massive scale and at lightning speed, often without transparent standards,' the government said in its submissions. The Karnataka High Court is currently hearing a plea by social media platform X challenging the Centre's use of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act to pass content blocking orders. The provision removes safe harbour protection for intermediaries if they fail to take down content flagged by the government. These orders are facilitated through the Home Ministry's Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)-led Sahyog Portal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, essentially made a 'sui generis' case against 'algorithmic curation systems' on the Internet which are 'fundamentally unlike any editorial process in traditional media', making a case for the government to flag and remove content from social media platforms with ease. 'Historically, the flow of information to the public was mediated by institutional gatekeepers – editors, publishers, broadcasters – who exercised at least some judgment over content. It is submitted that while this system was imperfect, it provided a measure of quality control and ensured that extreme or verifiably false content often struggled to find mass outlet,' Mehta's written submissions to the Court stated. The government also cited anonymity or pseudonymity in online platforms through alias accounts, encrypted messaging, etc. 'which can encourage more extreme speech by shielding speakers from accountability,' unlike in 'the world of licensed newspapers or broadcasters, who were known entities'. 'It is submitted that these algorithms automatically 'amplify' certain content: in other words, they boost exposure of posts beyond the reach that basic user-to-user transmission would achieve. This algorithmic curation system has no equivalent in traditional media, thus social media can 'target' information toward individual consumers in a way that is not possible for traditional media,' he said. X has challenged the Sahyog Portal, calling it a 'censorship portal.' According to government sources, as of March 2025, 38 IT intermediaries have been onboarded including significant ones like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Telegram, Apple, Sharechat, Snapchat, LinkedIn, YouTube, and others. Meta Inc, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has allowed API-based integration with the portal. The platform has refused to be onboarded on the portal, citing that the government has no power under Section 79 of the IT Act to send notices to online intermediaries to remove, disable access to any information, data or communication link. The power to issue orders to block content is specifically defined under Section 69A of the IT Act. These orders are issued under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Under Section 79, notices, and not blocking orders, are issued to intermediaries. In case of non-compliance with the notices, the government lifts the safe harbour protections under law. However, Section 69A applies to a narrower class of cases – against information that relates to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, as compared to Section 79. The categories of information under Section 69 are those listed under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution that deals with 'reasonable restrictions' on the right to freedom of speech and expression. The government has stated in its submissions to the Court that a wider net has to be cast under Section 79 to ensure 'unlawful content' under any other law is removed, including the constitutionally permissible reasonable restrictions. 'It is submitted that the present matter cannot, thus, be examined, analysed or adjudicated only from the perspective of those who exercise their freedom of expression by displaying, uploading, publishing, transmitting, storing or sharing information/content but also from the point of view of and with the intention to protect vital interest of the recipients of such information/content as well as larger interests of the society and the state, since such information/content may have very serious consequence of not only public mischief but creation of law and order/public order situation harming the society at large and danger to national security,' the submissions stated. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
