Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5731
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ
MOHAMMED JAVED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).647/2025 | SLP(C) No.18316/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Lamba, Adv., Mr. Neelmani Guha, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Dabas, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar, Adv., Mr. Ma Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv., Mr. Vikas Tiwari, Adv., Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pyoli, Adv., Mr. Ejaz M. Qureshi, Adv., Ms. Shaswati P., Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv., Ms. Pyoli, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR, Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv., Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv.
The court prioritized the integrity of ongoing criminal trials over media releases, emphasizing the need to avoid irreversible prejudice to the accused.
Headnote:(A) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 6 - Release of film ‘Udaipur Files’ - High Court stayed release pending the decision of the Central Government on a revision petition - Petitioner contends that release will impact ongoing criminal trial - Court defers hearing awaiting Central Government's decision. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Fundamental Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence - Impact of media on ongoing trials - Release of film during trial may lead to irreversible prejudice against the accused. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing trial for a murder case, argues that the film’s release will prejudice the trial proceedings. The High Court stayed the film's release pending a decision by the Central Government on a revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the film's content but deferred to the Central Government's powers under Section 6 of the 1952 Act.
Issues: The main issues were the potential impact of the film's release on the ongoing trial and the appropriate legal remedy under the Cinematograph Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of protecting the integrity of trial proceedings from external influences, allowing the Central Government to decide on the film's certification.
Result: Further hearing deferred to await Central Government's decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. stay on film release pending government review. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. potential trial prejudice from media release. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. government's role in film certification emphasized. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. integrity of trial proceedings must be protected. (Para 8) |
| 5. further consideration postponed. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
1. The Special Leave Petition (C) No.18316/2025 has arisen out of the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the release of the film “Udaipur Files” has been stayed till the application moved by Maulana Arshad Madani (respondent no.1), invoking powers of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (in short, the “1952 Act”), is decided by the Central Government, for which the High Court granted one week time. The Producer of the movie being aggrieved is before us.
2. The connected Writ Petition (C) No.647/2025 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Mohammed Javed, who is one of the accused facing trial in the 2022 murder case of Kanhaiya Lal Tailor. In relation thereto, National Investigating Agency has registered FIR No.RC-27/2022/NIA/DLI on 29.06.2022. His precise contention is that during the pendency of the trial before the Special NIA Court, Jaipur, where witnesses are still being examined, the release of the movie will have a direct impact on the pending trial proceedings, thereby causing irreversible prejudice to the accused and thus would lead to violation of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties/intervenors for some time.
4. It is a matter of record that the High Court vide impugned judgment has not expressed any opinion on merits, especially in respect to the contents or nature of the movie. The High Court has, in fact, relegated the writ petitioner (respondent no.1) to avail the statutory remedy of Revision Petition under Section 6 of 1952 Act, which vests adequate and substantial powers with the Central Government, including to declare a film to be uncertified. It goes without saying that the Central Government is also empowered to issue interim measures such as suspension of film from exhibition. With a view to enable the respondent no.1 to avail the aforesaid remedy, the High Court as an interim measure directed that the release of the film shall remain stayed till the revision petition under Section 6 of 1952 Act is decided by the Central Government. The High Court further has directed that the revision petition be decided within one week.
5. A photostat copy of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India has been handed over to us, whereby the competent Authority has constituted a Committee for the purpose of examination of the petition submitted by Maulana Arshad Madani (respondent no.1) to the Ministry on 14.07.2025 under Section 6 of 1952 Act. We are informed that the Committee, so constituted, has fixed the matter for hearing today at 2.30 p.m.
6. In such situation, we deem it appropriate to defer the further hearing and await the outcome of the proceedings which are now pending before the Central Government.
7. We have impressed upon the learned senior counsel for the parties to join the proceedings today at 2.30 p.m. before the Committee constituted by the Central Government and extend their full cooperation and assistance for an early adjudication of the revision petition. In this regard, we also permit Mohammed Javed – the petitioner in Writ Petition No.647/2025 to enter appearance before the Central Government in the pending revision petition through counsel and accord hearing to him as well (without filing any fresh petition).
8. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, we expect that the Committee constituted by the Central Government will decide the revision petition immediately without any loss of time.
9. Shri Gaurav Bhatia, learned senior counsel for the Pro
