The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision, declined to impose a stay on the release of the film Udaipur Files, advising the petitioners instead to approach the Delhi High Court if they sought further legal remedy. Despite repeated requests and arguments from the advocates representing individuals and groups opposing the release, the apex court emphasized that the proper venue for such objections was the Delhi High Court. The bench stated that any concerns regarding the film's content, approval, or potential consequences should be addressed before the appropriate forum rather than being brought prematurely before the Supreme Court.
On Friday, the Supreme Court categorically refused to extend an earlier interim stay that had been placed on the movie’s release. It further instructed those challenging the film’s public screening to contest the Central Government's revisional order—which permitted the film to be exhibited after six specific edits were made—by filing their case in the Delhi High Court. This directive came as a response to a plea that questioned the legitimacy and implications of the Central Board of Film Certification's clearance of the film.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, rebuked the petitioners’ attempt to bypass the proper legal route, stating, “Please go to the High Court first and pursue your case there. The film producer is satisfied with the Centre’s order and does not wish to continue this case in our court. So why should we spend our time on this when the matter is not rightly before us?”
Originally, Udaipur Files was scheduled for a nationwide release on July 11, 2025. However, the film encountered several delays due to issues relating to censorship and legal challenges. The movie dramatizes the tragic real-life killing of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur, who was brutally murdered in 2022 by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The motive for the crime was alleged to be Kanhaiya Lal’s support of controversial comments made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma about the Prophet Muhammad, which had sparked nationwide unrest.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Maulana Arshad Madani—the president of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind—sought permission to withdraw the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court and instead pursue the matter before the High Court, recognizing that the issue had not been properly brought before the apex court. Another prominent advocate, Menaka Guruswamy, represented one of the accused in the original murder case and supported the request for a stay.
Despite the urgency expressed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court refused to provide any interim relief. Even when they pleaded for a temporary stay on the film’s release until the Delhi High Court had an opportunity to hear the matter, the bench reiterated that such arguments were premature at the Supreme Court level. “Whatever objections or concerns you may have, please take them to the High Court,” the bench insisted firmly.
In contrast, the legal team representing the filmmakers argued that the release of Udaipur Files was unlikely to harm the social harmony or national unity of the country. They cited examples of past films such as The Kashmir Files, The Kerala Story, and even documentaries on the Pahalgam and 26/11 Mumbai attacks, none of which, they argued, had caused any significant public disturbance or disintegration of social fabric. “Why are they exaggerating this situation unnecessarily?” the filmmakers' counsel asked rhetorically, asserting that there was no substantial evidence of negative social consequences resulting from such films.
Countering this argument, Kapil Sibal contended that Udaipur Files should not be compared with previous films because this particular film had already been viewed by the petitioners, unlike in those earlier cases. This gave them a valid ground to challenge its content, he said. “That is precisely why we are raising objections now—because we have seen what’s in it, and we believe it requires closer judicial scrutiny,” Sibal explained.
Despite the ongoing debate, the Supreme Court refused to delve into the content or merit of the film at this stage. The bench also dismissed the filmmakers' assertion that the film posed no threat to public order, indicating that such matters could be examined in detail during appropriate legal proceedings elsewhere.
“These arguments, while significant, are best addressed in the right judicial setting,” remarked the bench. “We are not denying that these are thought-provoking issues that may demand discussion and legal examination, but that process does not begin here. For now, this court will not intervene.”
