Centre Withdraws Cuts in Udaipur Files: Delhi HC Disposes Petitions, Calls for Fresh Hearing

In a key development for India's cinematic and legal landscape, the Central Government has withdrawn its July 21 directive recommending six cuts in the controversial film Udaipur Files. The move came during the hearing of two petitions before the Delhi High Court, which questioned the Centre's authority to override or direct the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in matters of certification and content modification.

What Happened in Court?

The division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela took note of the Central Government’s decision, conveyed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, to withdraw its recommendations and revisit the matter afresh. The ASG assured the bench that a new order, consistent with legal provisions, would be issued after hearing all parties.

Following this assurance, the High Court disposed of the petitions filed by:

• Mohd. Javed, an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case depicted in the film, and

• Maulana Arshad Madani, a prominent religious leader.

The court directed all concerned parties to appear before the revisional authority on the following Monday and mandated that a new decision be issued by Wednesday, effectively ensuring a prompt resolution.

The Legal Conundrum: Authority of the Centre

During the hearings, Chief Justice Upadhyay sharply questioned the basis of the government's July 21 recommendations, especially under Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This section permits the Central Government to act as a revisional authority, but strictly allows only three types of actions: confirmation, reversal, or modification of CBFC’s decision—not proactive content modifications.

The court grilled the ASG on where exactly the Centre derived the power to “recommend” cuts without formally exercising its limited revisional powers. The Chief Justice emphasized that such recommendations, even if termed non-binding, can effectively deprive stakeholders of their legal right to appeal or seek remedy.

“Where do you have the power to pick up a matter and say—do this, don’t do that?” – Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay

The ASG conceded that if the court was dissatisfied with the legal basis, it may set aside the order, but insisted the Centre acted in good faith under its revisional capacity.

The Stakes: Delay in Film Release

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing film producer Amit Jani, objected to the delays, pointing out that the film’s release had already been held up by 21 days. While acknowledging the need for lawful conduct, he urged the court and revisional authorities to expedite proceedings.

In response, the court instructed that no party shall seek adjournment, and no fresh notices are required. This ensures the revisional process will proceed swiftly and without procedural delays.

Implications for Future Film Certification

This case raises pivotal questions for both content creators and regulators:

• Can the Central Government informally direct content changes, outside of its limited statutory powers?

• How should the CBFC and courts balance freedom of expression with fair trial rights and community sensitivities?

• Does the current structure under the Cinematograph Act offer enough clarity and procedural safeguards?

The Delhi HC’s insistence on statutory compliance and procedural clarity may set an important precedent for future disputes around film certification, political speech, and artistic freedom.

---

Key Takeaways

• The Central Government withdrew its previous order recommending 6 cuts in Udaipur Files.

• Delhi HC has directed all parties to appear before the revisional authority and expects a new decision by Wednesday.

• The court questioned the legal foundation of the Centre’s prior action and emphasized adherence to Section 6(2) of the Cinematograph Act.

• The case could influence how government oversight and film certification powers are balanced in India.

---