Centre to withdraw order granting release of film Udaipur files, Delhi HC told
The court, which was hearing two pleas challenging the Centre's decision allowing the release of the movie, directed the parties to appear before the government on August 4 and make their submissions.
The court was informed by the counsel for the film's producer that the movie is scheduled to be released on August 8 and they would take some time for making arrangements for releasing it by engaging the theatres.
The court took on record statement by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Central government as also the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), that the government will withdraw the earlier decision granting nod to the release of the film and 'take a decision on the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners afresh'.
Noting the submissions, the court disposed of the two petitions filed by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani.
The Centre's counsel had said the film has undergone a two-step filter, first by the censor board, which suggested 55 cuts, and second by the committee, which further asked for six cuts, totalling 61 cuts.
Javed's counsel objected to the release of the film on the ground that it would prejudice his case during the trial.
Kanhaiya Lal, an Udaipur-based tailor in Rajasthan, was murdered in 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, for sharing a social media post in support of former BJP leader Nupur Sharma after her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. 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
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC issues notice in petition challenging UPSC decision barring women from military academies through CDS exam
New Delhi A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Centre and UPSC to file their response in a petition. (Representative photo) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a petition challenging the Union Public Services Commission's (UPSC) decision barring women from applying to military academies through the Combined Defence Services (CDS) examination. A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Centre and UPSC to file their response in a petition filed by Kush Kalra, and fixed the next hearing for November 12. In his petition, Kalra asserted that UPSC's May 28 advertisement for the CDS-II Examination 2025, restricting women from applying to three of the four service branches—the Indian Military Academy (IMA), Dehradun; Indian Naval Academy (INA), Ezhimala; and Air Force Academy (AFA), Hyderabad—was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to equality and profession. The notification only permits women to apply to the Officers Training Academy, Chennai, in the Short Service Commission (SSC) course. Kalra, in his plea, contended through advocate Jyotika Kalra, sought to highlight the inconsistency between the exclusion and the government's own statement in the same notification, which claimed it 'strives to have a workforce which reflects gender balance and women candidates are encouraged to apply.' Such a contradiction, Kalra argued, exposes a systemic and discriminatory barrier that undermines the rights of aspiring women candidates and runs counter to constitutional principles and the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling on permanent commission. In February 2020, the Supreme Court, while allowing permanent commission to women officers in the Army, ruled that restricting the appointment of women to command positions was unconstitutional. To be sure, the Centre in September 2021, after the Supreme Court's nudge, informed the court about its decision to induct women into the National Defence Academy (NDA). However, the top court in January 2022 demanded an explanation from the Union government on restricting the intake of women cadets in the upcoming session of the NDA to 19– the same as last year. Citing the example of Col Sofyia Qureshi, one of the two women officers who briefed the media after India's execution of Operation Sindoor, Kalra in his petition asserted that denying entry to women through CDS would deprive the country of such officers. 'This exclusion of women candidates from the opportunity to get employed through CDS, becomes a hurdle in the career advancement opportunities for women officers in the armed forces. The categorical exclusion of women candidates from applying for the CDS examination and getting selected for IMA, AFA and INA solely on the grounds of sex, without any reasonable or justifiable explanations is a violation of the fundamental right to equality,' the petition read. Kalra said that even though the high court in April directed the Centre to take a call on the entry of women in CDS within eight weeks, no decision has been taken until now.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kharar realtor Ranjeet Singh Gill seeks anticipatory bail after Punjab VB raids, alleges political vendetta
Chandigarh: Apprehending arrest by Punjab Police, Kharar-based realtor Ranjeet Singh Gill approached the Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday to seek anticipatory bail. After hearing his plea, a single bench headed by Justice Aaradhana Sawhney referred the matter to the chief justice for directions after the Punjab govt informed the court that the matter is connected with an already pending petition filed by former minister Bikramjit Singh Majithia. A separate bench is hearing all cases that are related to the former and sitting MPs and MLAs. In his petition, Gill claimed that he was falsely and maliciously targeted by the vigilance bureau (VB), Punjab, solely on account of his political affiliation. Immediately after formally joining the Bharatiya Janata Party on Aug 1, Gill said, he became the subject of a politically motivated action by the state machinery. It was contended that acting under the influence of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the VB procured search warrants in an arbitrary and clandestine manner, without issuing any summons, notice, or requisition as mandated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You Paperela Undo The court was informed that multiple raids were conducted on Aug 2 at four of the petitioner's properties, including his residence, yet no incriminating material was found. However, now the notices under Section 179 of BNSS (corresponding Section 160 CrPC) have been issued, whereby he was summoned as a witness. "The petitioner is neither named in any FIR nor linked to the case by way of any disclosure or evidence, and the jurisdictional authority of the Vigilance Bureau does not extend to him as he is not a public servant. The entire sequence of events demonstrates a clear abuse of process, malafide intent, and political vendetta aimed at coercing and humiliating the petitioner for exercising his constitutional right to political association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India," his counsel submitted. On Aug 1, Gill joined BJP in a hurriedly called meeting with Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini at his residence. On Saturday, the bureau raided his residences.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Give details on nixing nod to prosecute 4 netas: SC to TN
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Tamil Nadu govt to provide details of cases pertaining to four political personalities against whom sanction for prosecution in corruption cases granted by the competent authorities were withdrawn following a change of government in the state after elections. TN additional advocate general Amit Anand Tiwari termed the PIL filed by Chennai-based lawyer Karuppiah Gandhi in this connection as a "motivated petition", aimed at garnering political mileage, and asserted before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh that the state has scrupulously adhered to the procedure established by law to deal with the cases. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate D S Naidu said the petition referred to 18 political personalities, who were or are ministers or MPs, against whom investigations were derailed, chargesheets were supplemented with assertions about their innocence to close the cases, or sanction for prosecution granted earlier were withdrawn. "Withdrawing sanction to prosecute is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence," he said. Referring to Tiwari's "politically motivated petition" argument, Justice Bhuyan told Naidu, "This is a malady not confined to Tamil Nadu alone. It is spread to the entire country. If you open a Pandora's box, it will come back to you one day". Tiwari said that investigations were carried out in the cases and taken to logical ends. The Madras high court was seized of some of the cases, he said. The bench told him, "Why don't you file a short affidavit giving details about the four cases where the previous sanction for prosecution was withdrawn allegedly after a change of political regime? We will confine the proceedings to these four cases, which appear to be serious". On the prayer of the petitioner to transfer trial in these cases against politicians to another state, the bench said it would create complications over appointment of public prosecutor (PP). Naidu said the state where the cases are transferred can be empowered to appoint the PP, to which the bench did not agree. Tamil Nadu, in its affidavit filed earlier, had said, "The criminal cases investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and anti-corruption bureau are dealt with in accordance with law without extraneous pressure. In spite of the party in power, the investigation, trial and appeal proceedings are carried out as per the established law and procedure".
