Back
NALSAR Students Screen Documentary on Umar Khalid Amid CBFC Warning and ABVP Opposition
In a bold assertion of and political solidarity, a group of students at in Hyderabad organized a screening of the documentary Prisoner No. 626710 is Present on Wednesday evening, defying prior warnings from the and a backdrop of political opposition from student groups like the . The screening, which focused on the plight of jailed activist Umar Khalid, underscores the escalating tensions over free expression on Indian law school campuses and raises critical questions about the intersection of criminal law, , and the .
Background: Umar Khalid and the UAPA Case
Umar Khalid, a former student of , has been in custody since under the for his alleged role in the behind the Delhi riots of . Khalid was a prominent figure in the protests against the in . His prolonged detention without trial has drawn widespread criticism from human rights organizations and legal scholars, who argue that the UAPA is being weaponized to silence dissent. The documentary, directed by filmmaker Lalit Vachani, explores Khalid's life inside Tihar Jail and the broader implications of the case.
The NALSAR Screening: A Defiant Act
On the evening of
, students at NALSAR arranged the screening using self-sourced equipment—a projector and a stand—after informal discussions within the student body. One of the organizers explained that the event was
"a mark of expressing solidarity with the prisoner."
The screening was not an official university event but was conducted with tacit approval from the administration, which did not intervene. The students expressed hope that the event would
"evoke inspiration within other universities now to not bow down to the fascist forces,"
reflecting a growing sentiment among law students that institutional neutrality is insufficient in the face of what they perceive as authoritarian crackdowns.
The documentary’s title refers to Khalid’s prison number, and the film includes interviews with legal experts, family members, and fellow activists. It has not been certified by the CBFC, a fact that loomed large over the screening. The CBFC had previously warned the
against screening the same documentary, stating that
"Public Screening of a Documentary film that has not yet been Certified by the CBFC is a violation of the Cinematograph Act unless a specific exemption has been sought under the Act."
Despite this, NALSAR students proceeded, arguing that the screening was an academic exercise and an act of peaceful expression.
Contrasting Responses: NLSIU Cancellation and Harassment
The NALSAR event comes just days after a similar attempt at the
in Bengaluru was aborted under pressure. A student group at NLSIU had scheduled the screening on Political Prisoners Day, but faced fierce opposition from the ABVP, the student wing of the ruling
. The NLSIU group later issued a statement revealing that they faced
"serious threats of criminal action, intimidation, doxxing, and other forms of harassment"
for planning the screening. Fearing legal repercussions and personal safety risks, they cancelled the event.
This disparity between the two premier law schools highlights the uneven landscape of free speech on Indian campuses. While NALSAR’s administration appears to have adopted a hands-off approach, NLSIU’s administration reportedly did not intervene to protect the student group from external threats, raising questions about the duty of educational institutions to uphold constitutional values. The ABVP’s role in both incidents—threatening legal action in Bengaluru and attempting to deter the Hyderabad screening—reflects a coordinated strategy to suppress dissenting voices.
Legal Analysis: Cinematograph Act, UAPA, and Free Speech
The CBFC’s warning invokes , which prohibits the public exhibition of a film that has not been certified by the Board. However, exemptions are available under for in academic or cultural settings. The key question is whether the NALSAR screening qualifies for such an exemption. The Act does not explicitly exempt university screenings, but the CBFC has historically allowed limited . The students could argue that their screening falls under "" for the purpose of education or criticism, though this defense has not been tested extensively.
More critically, the documentary deals with a person accused under the UAPA, a law that itself has been criticized for violating . The has upheld the constitutionality of the UAPA in several cases but has also emphasized that its provisions must not be used to stifle dissent. In , the Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organization does not attract UAPA liability unless there is evidence of active involvement in . Khalid’s case, which involves allegations of a , remains .
The NALSAR screening thus sits at a crossroads: it is both an act of and a potential violation of the Cinematograph Act. The CBFC’s warning, if enforced, could lead to of the organizers under Section 7 of the Act, which provides for imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine. However, given the symbolic nature of the screening and the lack of commercial gain, it is unlikely that authorities will pursue punitive action against students.
Impact on Legal Practice and Education
The events at NALSAR and NLSIU have significant implications for legal education in India. Law schools are meant to be laboratories for constitutional democracy, where students learn to debate and dissent within the framework of the law. When student groups are threatened or forced to cancel events, it sends a chilling message that certain topics are off-limits. The ABVP’s opposition—and the CBFC’s prior warning—illustrate the growing tension between state censorship and academic inquiry.
For practicing lawyers, these developments highlight the evolving use of the UAPA and the Cinematograph Act as tools to regulate speech. The case of Umar Khalid itself raises questions about the constitutionality of prolonged , especially in the context of the UAPA’s . The documentary screening may also prompt legal challenges to the CBFC’s authority over non-commercial exhibitions, potentially leading to on the scope of the Cinematograph Act.
Conclusion: A Test of Constitutional Resilience
The NALSAR screening of Prisoner No. 626710 is Present is more than a student event; it is a test of India’s constitutional resilience in the face of rising majoritarianism. By choosing to screen an uncertified documentary on a controversial figure, the students have drawn a line in the sand. Whether other universities follow their lead remains to be seen, but the message is clear: the legal community—especially its youngest members—will not easily abandon the . As the documentary’s title suggests, even a prisoner’s voice can reach beyond the walls of a jail cell, provided that the institutions of learning remain open to hearing it.
