"Right To Life Over Right To Speech": Top Court On Release Of Udaipur Files
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre's committee to take its decision in petitions related to the controversial movie "Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", "immediately, without loss of time", considering the urgency expressed by the makers of the film.
When the filmmakers contended that the Delhi High Court erred in stalling the film's release as the stay order violated the makers' right to freedom of speech and expression, the top court remarked that Article 21 (Fundamental Right to Life) will precede Article 19 (Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked filmmakers to await the Central government's decision, which is scheduled to hear objections against the movie later in the day, as it adjourned the hearing of the petitions related to the matter to next Monday.
"The Competent Authority (of the Central government) has taken cognisance of the revision petition over the release of the film pending before it and will be heard at 2:30 pm today," the court stated.
The court told the filmmakers that the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal tailor murder case-- Mohammad Javed--can't be compensated for the loss of reputation if the film is released, but the filmmakers can be monetarily compensated.
Justice Kant further remarked that in the film business, it's known that the more suspense around the movie, the better it is.
Senior counsel Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for filmmakers, has submitted that the producer and director of the film, as well as the son of late Kanhaiya Lal, were receiving death threats. The Court allowed them to make a representation to the police of the area, who were directed to assess the threat perception and do the needful to prevent harm if there is substance in their apprehension.
The top court was dealing with two petitions - one writ petition filed by one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal Teli murder case (on which the movie is based), and the second, filed by the makers of the movie challenging the Delhi High Court order staying the release of the movie.
The bench asked the Centre's committee to take a decision immediately without loss of time after hearing all the parties.
The Court also allowed Mohammad Javed to present his arguments before the committee through his counsel. "We permit Mohammad Javed (accused before the Court) to enter appearance through counsel before the central government in the pending revision petition, and we direct the committee to afford hearing to him as well. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, we expect that the Committee will decide the revision petition immediately without any loss of time," the bench said.
The film was scheduled to be released on July 11. On July 10, the Delhi High Court stayed the release till the Centre decides on pleas seeking a permanent ban over the film's potential to "promote disharmony" in society.
The petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president and Darul Uloom Deoband principal Maulana Arshad Madani before the high court, claim that a trailer of the movie released on June 26 was replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in 2022, and carries every potential to stoke the same sentiments again.
Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed.
The case was probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the Indian Penal Code.
The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
KTR bats for fair share to South States in policy-making, resource-sharing
BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao has stressed the need for protecting the federal structure of the country and has cautioned against the growing centralisation of power and resources in the Hindi heartland at the expense of Southern States, which contribute most to the country's economy. Participating in a discussion on 'The North-South Divide in Indian Politics', organised by a TV network in Jaipur on Sunday, he stated that representation in Parliament must not be dictated purely by population, as the Southern States had proactively implemented population control. Citing data, he noted that while Southern States like Kerala limited its population growth to just 69% since 1950, Uttar Pradesh witnessed a staggering 239% rise. This demographic imbalance, he warned, was now set to translate into a political imbalance through the proposed delimitation exercise, which could see South India lose parliamentary seats as North India stands to gain. 'The more political parties start feeling that the Hindi belt will decide who becomes the Prime Minister, the entire focus will be on making policies that suit the Hindi belt only,' he cautioned. Language imposition On the issue of language imposition, Mr. Rama Rao said that the country has no national language and it does not need one. 'With 22 official languages and over 300 unofficial ones, our diversity is our strength. Language is not just a tool of communication, it's our cultural identity. I am not enforcing Telugu on you, so why enforce Hindi on me,' he asked. Raising concerns over controversies around electoral roll revisions in Bihar, the BRS leader noted that allegations of nearly five lakh voters being struck off the rolls would undermine India's democratic foundations. 'This is deeply worrying. In the last Bihar elections, the losing margin was just 12,500 votes,' he mentioned and asked the Election Commission to act fairly. He questioned the Centre's credibility on the promises made under AP Reorganisation Act such as increase in the Assembly seats in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 'They hurriedly increased seats in Jammu & Kashmir and Assam for political gains, but ignored South India,' he said.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Omar Abdullah seeks centre's intervention in securing release of abducted Indian in Niger
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Sunday (July 20, 2025) sought the Centre's intervention in seeking the release of a resident of Ramban district, who was allegedly abducted by terrorists in the West African country of Niger a few days ago. Mr. Abdullah's request to External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar comes a day after Rankeet Singh's wife made a fervent appeal for his release. "Chief Minister has expressed concern over the abduction of Ranjeet Singh, a resident of Ramban, in Niger. He urges the Hon'ble EAM @DrSJaishankar and @MEAIndia to urgently intervene to secure Ranjeet's safe and swift return," Abdullah's office posted on X. Chief Minister has expressed concern over the abduction of Ranjeet Singh, a resident of Ramban, in Niger. He urges the Hon'ble EAM @DrSJaishankar and @MEAIndia to urgently intervene to secure Ranjeet's safe and swift return. — Office of Chief Minister, J&K (@CM_JnK) July 20, 2025 Sheela Devi, Rankeet's wife, on Saturday said that her husband works as a senior safety officer at Transrail Lighting Limited, an integrated power transmission and distribution company, in Niger and the family lost contact with him on July 15. According to the Indian embassy, two Indians were killed and one abducted following a terrorist attack in southwest Niger. "In a heinous terror attack on July 15 in Niger's Dosso region, two Indian nationals tragically lost their lives and one was abducted," the embassy said in a social media post on Friday. According to Niger media, unidentified gunmen attacked an army unit guarding a construction site in Dosso, about 130 kilometres from capital Niamey. "We talked on WhatsApp on July 15 and since then, I have not been able to contact him. I called his management and was initially told that there is no network at the work site," Sheela Devi said. She said she learned about her husband's abduction the next day through his friend, even as the management maintained that he had fled deep into the forest following the terror attack. "It has been four days since then. I believe that there is no effort to secure my husband's release from his captors," the mother of three children, said. She alleged that her repeated attempts to reach out to the company were being met with cold response. "I do not know what kind of situation my husband is in. I do not have any idea about the efforts of the local government," Sheela Devi said. She said she has also met Ramban Deputy Commissioner Mohammad Alyas Khan. "The deputy commissioner said he will do everything in his capacity, but I know the main work is that of our external affairs ministry. If they want, my husband will come home safely," she said.
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
As bar associations go after courtroom imposters in black & white, concerns about ‘overreach'
'No clerk, litigant, or member of the general public is permitted to wear a white shirt and black pants,' the notice stated, declaring the attire 'strictly reserved' for advocates as a symbol of professional identity. In an effort to clamp down on the worrying trend of touts and fake lawyers misleading and defrauding litigants, the Rohini Court Bar Association (RCBA) issued a notice 15 July, prohibiting non-lawyers from wearing white shirts and black trousers within the court premises. New Delhi: From Shahdara to Gurugram, court bar associations are imposing attire restrictions after a surge in non-lawyers posing as advocates — triggering fresh debate on freedom, formality, and access to justice. 'A number of touts are falsely representing themselves as official advocates or clerks… These individuals are misleading and defrauding uneducated litigants under false pretence,' the RCBA said. A month earlier, the Gurgaon Bar Association passed a similar resolution, emphasising that only enrolled advocates or duly authorised law interns are permitted to wear the professional dress code — white shirt and black trousers, salwar suit, or sari—as per Bar Council of India (BCI) norms. According to the resolution dated 5 June, violators now face a Rs 5,000 penalty, and the rule is strictly enforced inside the district court complex. In November 2022, the Shahdara Bar Association of Delhi introduced a new dress code for interns—white shirt and blue coat and trousers. This was done keeping in mind the confusion and mix up between advocates and interns as a large number of interns visit the court. But this order was set aside by the Delhi High Court which said a standard uniform should be mandated across the board as varying dress codes set by different bar associations would create confusion and difficulties for interns. Thus, the uniform prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi would be followed uniformly across Delhi. In November 2018, a Delhi High Court judge set aside a similar notice issued by the Rohini Bar Association directing interns not to wear black coats. Even though there have been debates about change in the formal attire due to the excessive summer heat—discussions about litigant's clothing have been uncommon. Also Read: Gurugram Bar cracks down on courtroom impersonators with a 'black & white' ban The colonial legacy The black-and-white dress code—black coat, white shirt, neckband—was inherited by the Indian legal system from the British colonial tradition. The tradition of wearing uniforms in courts is centuries-old. In England, judges began wearing wigs around 1650, although robes had already been in use even earlier. After Independence, India did away with the wig but retained black coats and robes as part of courtroom attire. Under the Advocates Act of 1961, it is compulsory for lawyers in India to wear a black coat or robe along with a white neckband. Wearing a gown is optional, except when appearing before the Supreme Court or high courts. Over the years, this uniform has become the visual shorthand for a lawyer in India — both inside courtrooms and in popular culture. But that symbolic power is now being undermined. The crisp black coat and white shirt are more than just fashion. In India, they're a badge of authority. In Bollywood or TV, anyone in black-and-white is instantly assumed to be a powerful lawyer character—think Jolly LLB or Damini. According to the Bar Council of India 'an advocate shall appear in court only in the dress prescribed and his appearance should always be presentable'. The Advocates Act, 1961, along with the Bar Council of India Rules, outlines the dress code for advocates in India. For male advocates , a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (knee-length jacket), black sherwani, and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, a black open-breast coat, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Long trouser —white, black, striped, or grey—or a dhoti. For female advocates, a black full- or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar (stiff or soft), and white bands with an advocate's gown. Alternatively, sarees or long skirts in white, black, or any mellow or subdued colour without any print or design or flares in white, black, black-striped, or grey. But the rules, while clear for advocates, are silent on what litigants or the general public can or cannot wear. Who owns the black & white? Traditionally, litigants were expected to dress 'formally' in courts, out of respect for the proceedings. But now, some worry these colour restrictions could affect people simply trying to dress appropriately. The recent curbs raise questions about dress codes being enforced beyond legal professionals. 'While the RCBA's intention to prevent impersonation is understandable, enforcing a prohibition on basic attire—white shirts and black trousers — across all court visitors strays into arbitrary overreach,' Delhi-based advocate Urja Pandey told ThePrint. Furthermore, these are common everyday wear in India, worn by students, clerks, office workers, and even children, she explained. 'Banning them impinges on ordinary citizens' freedom of expression and right to access justice, especially when they may lack the means for elaborate wardrobe changes.' 'The Bar Council of India's authority under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act empowers it to regulate advocates' dress, not the public's; extending such rules to litigants or clerks risks legal invalidation,' she added. Supreme Court advocate Shariq Ahmed Abbasi, however, said the Rohini Bar Association notice must be welcomed by the public at large. This move, he said, is only to 'save litigants from the menace of touts. It was repeatedly brought to the knowledge of the Bar body that several miscreants had falsely represented themselves as lawyers and defrauded the litigants.' 'The step should be seen in the right earnest with the objective of preserving the interests of litigants and as a mark of professional identity and dignity of the legal fraternity,' he told ThePrint. About alternatives, advocate Pandey explained how the issue of impersonation can be better addressed through 'targeted measures such as mandatory identity cards, better gate security, biometric checks, or visible signage — not blanket attire bans'. Ved Prakash Sharma, co-chairman of the Bar Council of India since 2019 and a former chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, also criticised this move. He said a bar association is an association of advocates working at a particular court complex, and they have no right or authority to prescribe a dress code for members of the society. 'They (bar associations) have no legal or moral authority to do that, and (they) are exceeding their jurisdiction and authority by prescribing a dress code or penalising people wearing advocate attire,' he added. 'Even for advocates, the only statutory body—Bar Council of India—will prescribe a dress code.' He acknowledged the concerns about touts, security and safety as legitimate, but said 'these things are to be taken up with the law enforcement authorities, the police concerned or the district judge or the High Court.' 'And it is their business how to control and regulate the entry of unwarranted people in the court complex.' (Edited by Ajeet Tiwari) Also Read: Bangs, lipstick, low neckline—for Indian woman lawyers, merit evaluation steeped in misogyny
