"We have pleaded": Advocate Pulkit Agarwal on Supreme Court agrees to hear plea of 'Udaipur Files' release
The plea was mentioned by Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia on behalf of the producer of the movie, who stated that the CBFC has already approved the said film and its non-release is violating his fundamental right.
On the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the plea against the stay on the release of 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder', Advocate Pulkit Agarwal told the media, 'We have pleaded that the High Court's order, which has stayed the release of the movie, needs to be set aside. We have prayed to the Supreme Court to grant the release of this movie. Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia mentioned the matter on behalf of the producer. The court observed orally that the matter would be listed within 2-3 days...'
The Delhi High Court recently stayed the release of the movie one day before its official release date. The Delhi High Court on Thursday, July 10, ordered a stay on the release of the film. The stay will remain in effect until the Central Government decides on the revision application filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
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, challenging the CBFC's decision to grant certification to the film. The petitioners argued that the film's release could disturb communal harmony and pose a serious threat to public order, given the sensitive nature of the subject.
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 stated.
'Udaipur Files' is based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was brutally killed in broad daylight by two men allegedly angered by a social media post in support of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The incident had triggered national outrage and raised serious concerns about radicalisation and communal violence.
The petitioners contended that the film sensationalises the incident and may further inflame tensions. They also raised concerns over the timing of the release, just ahead of upcoming elections in several states.
The Court, while not going into the merits of the film itself, held that the legal procedure for challenging CBFC certification must be followed and ensured that no irreparable damage occurs in the interim. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
'Bring down age of consent from 18 to 16 years': Plea filed in SC
The Supreme Court has been urged by amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in "Nipun Saxena v. Union of India" case, has filled her written submissions challenging the blanket criminalisation of sexual activity involving adolescents aged 16 to 18 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 and Section 375 of IPC. She has argued the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights. Jaising said the legal framework wrongly equates consensual relationships between adolescents with abuse, ignoring their autonomy, maturity, and capacity to consent. There is no rational reason or empirical data to justify the increase in the age of consent from 16 to 18 years, Jaising submitted, noting that the age had remained at 16 for over 70 years until it was raised by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. She pointed out the increase came without debate and went against the Justice Verma Committee's recommendation to retain 16 as the age of consent. The amicus curiae submitted adolescents today attain puberty earlier and are capable of forming romantic and sexual relationships of their choice. Scientific and social data, including findings from the National Family Health Survey, indicate sexual activity among teenagers is not uncommon, she said. Jaising cited a 180 per cent rise in prosecutions under POCSO involving minors aged 1618 between 2017 and 2021. Most complaints are filed by parents, often against the girl's will, in cases involving inter-caste or inter-faith relationships, she said, cautioning criminalising consensual sex forces young couples into hiding, marriage or legal trouble, instead of encouraging open dialogue and education". To address this, she urged the court to read into the law a close-in-age exception, which would exempt consensual sexual acts between adolescents aged 16 to 18 from prosecution under POCSO and IPC. Criminalising sex between teenagers is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the best interests of children, she said. The senior lawyer referred to international norms and Indian jurisprudence to argue that legal capacity is not strictly age-bound. Quoting the UK's Gillick ruling and India's own Puttaswamy privacy judgment, she said autonomy in decision-making is central to the right to privacy and must extend to adolescents capable of informed sexual choices. The submission also pointed to trends in various high courts, including Bombay, Madras, and Meghalaya, where judges have expressed disapproval over the automatic prosecution of adolescent boys under POCSO. These courts have stressed not all sexual acts involving minors are coercive, and the law should distinguish between abuse and consensual relationships. Jaising concluded urging the top court to declare consensual sex between adolescents aged between 16 and 18 was not a form of abuse and must be excluded from the purview of POCSO and rape laws. She called for a review of the mandatory reporting obligations under Section 19 of POCSO, which deter adolescents from seeking safe medical care. Sexual autonomy is part of human dignity, she said, "and denying adolescents the ability to make informed choices about their own bodies was a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Scroll.in
31 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court agrees to hear contempt plea against demolitions in Assam's Goalpara
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a contempt petition against Assam's chief secretary and Goalpara district authorities for alleged violations of the court's earlier guidelines on eviction and demolition drives in June, Live Law reported. A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notices to the chief secretary and other officials, seeking their responses in the matter within two weeks, PTI reported. Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the state authorities issued eviction notices to residents in Goalpara's Hasilabeel village just two days before razing their homes. He argued that even those accused of encroaching on government land are entitled to due legal procedure. 'These are 667 poor families who have been there on that land for 60–70 years,' he said, adding that many had been forced to settle in higher areas due to shifts in the course of the Brahmaputra river. The petitioners contended that the evictions and demolitions 'predominantly targeted a minority community, leaving out similarly placed persons from the majority community untouched', PTI reported. When Hegde requested interim relief in the form of a status quo, the court cautioned that any relief would not apply if the demolitions involved government land. The petition relies on a Supreme Court judgement from November that held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It added that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments. The judgement, however, specified that the guidelines would not apply to unauthorised structures on public property, including roads, riverbanks and railway lines. The contempt plea has been filed by eight residents of Hasilabeel village in Goalpara who claim to have lived in the area for over six decades with valid voter identity cards, PAN and Aadhaar cards, Live Law reported. According to the plea, the demolitions there began after a circle officer issued an undated notice on June 13, giving just two days to vacate land reportedly allotted to the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation in 2015. They alleged the authorities only gave common notices to the affected through announcements on a microphone, rather than giving individual notices. On June 16, district authorities in Goalpara demolished the homes of 690 families in Hasilabeel. This was followed by a second drive in the district on July 12, when 1,080 more families were evicted from their homes in the Paikan Reserve Forest. Between 2016 and August 2024, more than 10,620 families – the majority of them Muslim – have been evicted from government land, according to data provided by the state revenue and disaster management department.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Renukaswamy murder: HC bail order perverse use of discretionary powers, says SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Thursday called the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case a "perverse exercise' of discretionary power. Renukaswamy murder: HC bail order perverse use of discretionary powers, says SC A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan went on to reserve the verdict on Karnataka government's appeal against the December 13, 2024 order of the high court granting bail to the actor and co-accused. The top court heard submissions of senior advocates Siddhath Luthra, appearing for the state government, and Siddharth Dave and others, representing the accused in the case. It took on records the written note filed by the state and a few others while asking the counsel for remaining accused persons to file short notes within a week. Questioning the grant of the reprieve, Justice Pardiwala asked defence counsel by saying, 'Don't you think that the high court has dictated an order of acquittal of seven accused while deciding bail petitions?' The judge went on, 'What is worrying is that the manner in which the high court dictated the bail order…does the high court dictate the same kind of order in every bail matter?' The bench further questioned the way the high court dealt with the statements of two eye witnesses, Kiran and Puneet, calling them "unreliable witnesses'. 'This is the perverse exercise of discretionary powers in grant of bail to accused,' Justice Pardiwala said. Pointing out all accused persons were out on bail and the trial was yet to start, the court asked, "Has the high court applied its mind judicially?" On July 17, the bench expressed its reservation over the high court granting bail to the accused and said it was 'not at all convinced' by the manner in which the discretionary power exercised. Justice Pardiwala said, 'To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the high court has exercised discretion." The court underlined the need to be convinced that there was "no good reason for this court to interfere". Luthra argued the bail granted by the high court was unjustified, especially in a case involving serious charges under Section 302 of the IPC. He argued the high court effectively granted a "pre-trial acquittal" without properly examining key evidence, including statements of eyewitnesses and forensic findings. Luthra elaborated on how CCTV footage from the apartment complex, where the body was allegedly dumped, revealed suspicious vehicle movement. He also highlighted forensic evidence, including bloodstains found on items linked to the crime scene and the accused. He underscored the gravity of the charges and the circumstantial evidence indicating a conspiracy. Defending bail, Dave argued that the investigation was flawed and that the credibility of the eyewitnesses was questionable due to delayed statements. Dave pointed out that charges were yet to be framed and the trial has not commenced. The bench, however, expressed concern over the high court's approach, especially in handling the gravity of murder charge. 'We will not repeat the mistake of the high court. We are not here to decide guilt or innocence, only to examine whether bail was rightly granted,' Justice Pardiwala said. Darshan, along with actress Pavithra Gowda and several others, is accused of abducting and torturing 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan who allegedly sent obscene messages to Pavithra. The police alleged the victim was held in a shed in Bengaluru for three days in June 2024, tortured and his body was recovered from a drain. The top court on January 24 issued the notices to the actor, Pavithra Gowda, and others in the case on the plea of the state government. Darshan was arrested on June 11, 2024, for allegedly killing his fan Renukaswamy on June 8 the same year after he reportedly sent obscene messages to Gowda. The actor was arrested and lodged at the Parappana Agrahara Jail in Bengaluru but when a photograph of him relaxing with some other jail inmates went viral, he was transferred to Ballari Central Jail. The state moved the top court against the bail on January 6. The mortal remains of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, an autorickshaw driver, were discovered on June 9, 2024. He allegedly succumbed to injuries after being attacked on the orders of Darshan, who reportedly urged his fans to accost and kidnap Renukaswamy for posting derogatory comments about Gowda on social media. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
