Udaipur Files: I&B panel OKs the movie; no Supreme Court nod yet
NEW DELHI: New Delhi: The I&B ministry's special committee Monday cleared the release of the film 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' with a new disclaimer, replacing the name 'Nutan Sharma' (representing Nupur Sharma in true story) and the line
'maine toh wohi kaha hai jo unke dharm grantho mein likha hai
(I said what is written in their religious books)'.
But the film would not be released in theatres as a
Supreme Court
bench asked the petitioners to file their objections to the committee's Monday order. The bench posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.
The Supreme Court posted the 'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' movie release case for further hearing on Thursday and said till then the film would not be released in theatres. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the committee passed the order after watching the film and hearing objections from the counsel for the petitioners.
It has ordered additional cuts and changes apart from the 55 cuts effected on orders of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) prior to allowing its release.
The panel headed by additional secretary in I&B ministry Prabhat and comprising advisory panel members – Anila Sharma, Satish Pande, Sona Kumari (all from CBFC), and joint secretary in ministry of home affairs, Anil Subramaniam. In its order, the committee recommended release of the film for commercial/public viewing after carrying out the following changes/modifications:
Replace the existing disclaimer with the recommended one and include a voice-over for the disclaimer.
Remove frames in the credits that thank various individuals.
Revise the AI-generated scene depicting a Saudi Arabia-style turban.
Replace all instances of the name 'Nutan Sharma', including on the poster, with a new name.
Delete Nutan Sharma's dialogue: '…maine toh wohi kaha hai jo unke dharm grantho mein likha hai…'
Remove following dialogues: Hafiz: '…Baluchi kabhi wafadar nahin hota…'; Makbool: '…Baluchi ki…' and '…Arre kya Baluchi kya Afghani kya Hindustani kya Pakistani…'
The disclaimer included — it is not a literal account of actual persons or occurrences; Any resemblances to real persons and events is unintentional; film does not endorse, justify or glorify violence, vigilantism, extremism or illegal acts.
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
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Udaipur Files: SC asks HC to hear pleas against govt nod for film's release
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Delhi High Court to hear on July 28 the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder". A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the filmmakers appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous for they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, was ordered to move the high court against the Centre's decision. During a brief hearing, advocate Syed Rizwan appearing for film producers, said the contention of Madani and Javed that a particular community was targeted in the film and the threat to social fabric of the country, was "nothing but figment of their imagination". "Nothing happened when Kashmir Files was released, Kerala Story was released. The social fabric of the country was not affected when the Pahalgam attack took place, when the Pulawama terror attack took place. Our country's social fabric is much stronger," he said. The bench found Rizwan's arguments "thought provoking" and said it will be dealing with them in appropriate cases or when the petitioners challenge the high court order after it has examined the matter. Sibal said during "Kerala story" and "Kashmir Files" cases the court had not seen the movies but in this case he had watched the movie and could tell that one particular community was targeted. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for filmmakers, said the balance (of convenience) was in his favour with the Centre now clearing the movie after the CBFC certification and the producers accepting the decision. Recording Bhatia's submission, the top court held the plea before it had become infructuous. The top court further noted Sibal's submission that Madani filed a writ petition in the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order dated July 21 passed by the Centre. "Since, in the connected matter, we have relegated the writ petitioner to approach the high court as he has already filed a writ high court is requested to take up the said writ petition for hearing on July 28," the bench said. The top court clarified not expressing any opinion on merits and said the high court was at liberty to pass appropriate orders. The high court on July 10 stayed the film's release on a Madani's plea, invoking powers of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, till the representation is decided by the Central Government, for which the high court granted one week time. The filmmakers claimed to have received a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate with the board suggesting 55 cuts and the film was due to be released on July 11. 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 member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur. (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.)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds man's conviction in minor sexual assault, modifies sentence to life term
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man in a sexual assault case of a minor girl but modified his sentence to life term instead of prison time for the remainder of natural life. The top court's verdict came on the man's appeal against a September 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court.(File Photo) A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found merit in the submission that since the offence was committed in May 2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act could not have been applied to his case. Section 6 deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The bench noted the amended provision of Section 6 of the Act came into force on August 16, 2019. Prior to the 2019 amendment, the court noted, Section 6 entailed a minimum punishment of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment along with the fine. Referring to Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences, the bench said, "The constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute." The trial court was observed to have applied the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 amendment to Section 6, effectively subjecting the convict to a punishment greater than what was permissible under the law at the time of the offence. "The sentence of 'imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life', as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on May 20, 2019, the date of the incident," the bench said. Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was life term in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till remainder of natural life. "Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant under section 6 of the POCSO Act, we modify the sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life," it said. The ₹10,000 fine imposed on him was, however, upheld. The top court's verdict came on the man's appeal against a September 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The high court rejected his plea against a trial court verdict, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life with the fine. The man was booked in 2019 on the complaint of the father of the minor survivor.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ACB told to file counter affidavit in IAS arrest
Ranchi: The Jharkhand high court on Friday directed the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) to file a supplementary affidavit in a petition filed by suspended IS officer, Vinay Choubey. Choubey has been behind bars and has been arrested on May 20, for his alleged involvement in the Rs 38 crore liquor scam. The case will again be heard on August 1. Choubey has challenged his arrest on the ground that the Supreme Court guidelines to be followed prior to arresting of an accused has not been followed by the bureau. Ranchi: The Jharkhand high court on Friday directed the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) to file a supplementary affidavit in a petition filed by suspended IS officer, Vinay Choubey. Choubey has been behind bars and has been arrested on May 20, for his alleged involvement in the Rs 38 crore liquor scam. The case will again be heard on August 1. Choubey has challenged his arrest on the ground that the Supreme Court guidelines to be followed prior to arresting of an accused has not been followed by the bureau.
