Maulana Arshad Madani, President of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Centre’s decision to approve the release of the film Udaipur Files with 6 suggested modifications.
In a writ petition and a set of objections, Madani argues that the film promotes communal hatred under the guise of cinematic expression, and that its approval violates both legal procedure and constitutional safeguards.
Petition Challenges Centre’s Approval
Madani has also contested the Union government’s handling of the clearance process, particularly after the Delhi High Court stayed the film’s release, pending the outcome of revision petitions. He asserts that the Centre’s subsequent greenlighting of the film—subject to a handful of changes—is legally flawed and ignores the court’s earlier direction.
The petition, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, alleges that Udaipur Files is a politically charged narrative, not a genuine work of cinema. It singles out the film’s producer, Amit Jani, as a known political agitator with a history of communal provocation.
Madani refers to several media-reported incidents involving Jani, including:
- The vandalism of a statue of former UP CM Mayawati in 2012
- Attacks on a Shiv Sena office, threats against politicians, and inflammatory remarks targeting Kashmiris
- The circulation of controversial material involving heritage symbols like the Taj Mahal
- Allegedly planting a threatening letter targeting JNU students Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid
“These actions reflect a consistent pattern of inflammatory conduct,” the petition states, “which should disqualify him from being treated as a bona fide producer of creative work.”
Film Accused Of Spreading Hatred
While Udaipur Files claims to depict the 2022 murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, Madani argues the film exploits the tragedy to launch a broader vilification of the Muslim community. He alleges that the narrative portrays Muslims as “scheming, violent, and disloyal,” and falsely implies they act at the behest of hostile foreign powers.
“The storyline is crafted not to inform but to inflame,” the petition states. “It is a deliberate attempt to instil distrust and hostility against Muslims by projecting the entire community as inherently dangerous.”
Drawing from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on hate speech, including the Amish Devgan case, Madani contends that the film crosses the line from protected expression to incendiary propaganda, which is not covered under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Objections To Review Process & Edits
Madani also raises objections about the review process conducted by the Centre, alleging bias in the composition of the committee that reviewed objections to the film. He points out that some members of the committee were allegedly linked to the ruling political party, making the process neither fair nor impartial.
He further argues that Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act does not allow for conditional approval after certification, and that the six changes required by the Centre are superficial, doing little to address the film’s core communal messaging.
Request For Supreme Court Intervention
The petition urges the Supreme Court to:
- Set aside the Centre’s clearance of the film
- Stop the release of Udaipur Files
- Declare the certification process unlawful
Direct accountability for what is alleged to be a violation of constitutional values and the rule of law
Madani argues that unchecked hate content in the guise of cinema not only threatens communal harmony but also undermines public trust in the justice system.
Court is expected to consider the petition in the coming days, as the case brings to the fore urgent questions about the limits of artistic freedom, the responsibility of state institutions, and the fragile balance of communal peace in India.
(Inputs By Sambhav Sharma)
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
