High Court Directs Screening Of ‘Udaipur Files Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder For Petitioner Seeking Ban
By Tanveer Zaidi (Actor–Author–Educationist)
In a significant development concerning the controversial upcoming film #UdaipurFiles: KanhaiyaLalTailorMurder, the #DelhiHighCourt on July 9 issued a directive instructing the film’s producers to organize a private screening of the movie for individuals and groups who have raised objections to its public release.
This order was passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal, amid growing concerns that the film could potentially inflame communal tensions.
Court Orders Screening Amid Objection Over Potential Communal Disharmony
The court’s direction came during the hearing of a petition filed by a group led by Maulana Arshad Madani, President of #JamiatUlama-i-Hind, and other senior religious scholars, including the principal of Darul Uloom, Deoband.
These petitioners were represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who urged the court to consider the grave implications the film’s content could have on public order, especially in India’s sensitive socio-religious climate.
Sibal argued that while the crime at the heart of the film—the brutal murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur in June 2022—was indeed heinous and committed by two radicalised individuals, the narrative portrayed in the film’s trailer unfairly generalized and implicated religious leaders and the larger Muslim community.
He alleged that this representation was “false and misleading” and could incite communal disharmony, potentially violating the spirit of #constitutionalvalues and India’s secular ethos.
CBFC Claims Objectionable Content Removed, But Petitioners Remain Concerned
Responding to the court, representatives of the #CentralBoardOfFilmCertification (#CBFC) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting maintained that the “objectionable” scenes and dialogues in the film had already been removed following CBFC review.
Chetan Sharma, appearing on behalf of both bodies, stated that the film had been granted certification after due diligence and did not, in its final form, contain content that violated public decency or peace.
However, Sibal countered this claim, insisting that the “overall tone and intent” of the movie remained problematic. He argued that the #freedomOfExpression, while protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, must be balanced with “constitutional morality”, especially when the medium in question may be used to deepen existing religious divides.
Concerns Over the Trailer and Alleged Community Targeting
The petitioners also drew attention to the film’s trailer, which was released on June 26 and subsequently taken down.
They asserted that the trailer had already caused damage by portraying the murder as being orchestrated with the complicity of religious clerics, a claim they deemed both inflammatory and factually inaccurate.
While the film’s producers claimed that the trailer had been withdrawn voluntarily, Sibal responded that “the damage had already been done” due to its initial circulation.
The petitioners alleged that the film’s underlying narrative attempts to “weaponize artistic freedom” in a way that undermines the vision of a plural and inclusive India, enshrined in the #IndianConstitution.
The Real-Life Incident: A Shocking Act of Extremism
The movie is based on a horrifying real-life incident in which #KanhaiyaLal, a Hindu tailor from Udaipur, Rajasthan, was beheaded inside his shop by two men—Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghouse—on June 28, 2022.
The attackers recorded and circulated a video of the murder, claiming it was retaliation for a social media post by Lal that appeared to support former #BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who was then embroiled in a nationwide controversy over her alleged derogatory remarks about the #ProphetMuhammad.
Balancing Creative Expression and Public Responsibility
As the debate around #UdaipurFiles intensifies, the matter now stands at the intersection of creative freedom, communal sensitivity, and legal scrutiny.
While the producers maintain that the film seeks to depict a real and disturbing event through the lens of justice and awareness, the petitioners argue that it fuels sectarian suspicion and promotes a divisive political narrative.
