Is Jamiat Ulema Taking Legal Action Against the Film on Kanhaiya Lal Murder Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
A legal battle unfolds as Maulana Arshad Madani, the leader of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, files a PIL in the Delhi High Court to stop the release of the controversial film 'Udaipur Files' based on the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. The film's trailer ignites fears of communal discord, raising questions about freedom of expression versus societal harmony.
Key Takeaways
- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind is challenging a film release over potential communal disharmony.
- The film “Udaipur Files” depicts the controversial murder of Kanhaiya Lal.
- The trailer has been criticized for inflammatory content.
- The case raises questions about freedom of expression versus social responsibility.
- The outcome could set legal precedents for similar cases in the future.
New Delhi, July 5 (NationPress) Maulana Arshad Madani, the head of the Islamic clerical organization Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, has initiated a public interest litigation (PIL) at the Delhi High Court seeking to block the release of the film “Udaipur Files”.
The film, which is set to debut globally on July 11, portrays the actual events surrounding the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.
In June 2022, Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur, Rajasthan, was viciously killed by Mohammad Riyaz Attari and Ghaus Mohammad by slitting his throat.
The PIL claims that the trailer, which was launched on June 26 on YouTube, contains dialogues and scenes that could rekindle communal tensions reminiscent of recent events, thus posing a significant risk to communal harmony.
“The trailer unequivocally indicates the film’s intent, portraying an entire community in a biased light, infringing upon their right to dignity,” the petition states. It further notes that the trailer makes reference to the “Gyanvapi Masjid”, a currently contentious issue before both the Varanasi District Court and the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the film allegedly highlights the controversial remarks made by politician Nupur Sharma, which sparked communal unrest and contributed to the tragic murder of Kanhaiya Lal.
The petition emphasizes that the trailer, and by extension the movie, reiterates inflammatory content (comments against Prophet Mohammad PBUH) that led to multiple FIRs against Nupur Sharma.
“The trailer is filled with dialogues and elements that clearly constitute hate speech targeted at a specific community. The language, imagery, and narrative employed are not only incendiary but also intentionally communal,” the plea asserts.
The petition also disputes the certification provided by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), arguing that it violates Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 along with the associated guidelines.
Seeking to annul the CBFC’s certification, the plea contends that the trailer fosters a divisive and inflammatory narrative that vilifies an entire religious community, warning that the release of “Udaipur Files” could exacerbate communal discord and threaten public order, ultimately undermining the fabric of religious harmony in the nation.
Point of View
This case highlights the delicate balance between artistic expression and communal harmony. While the right to free speech is crucial, it is equally important to consider the potential repercussions of content that could incite division. The decision by the Delhi High Court will set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
NationPress
04/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basis of the PIL filed by Jamiat Ulema?
The PIL seeks to prohibit the release of 'Udaipur Files' due to its potential to incite communal tensions and depict a community in a prejudicial manner.
What happened to Kanhaiya Lal?
Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, was brutally murdered in June 2022 by two individuals, which has become a pivotal point in the discussion surrounding the film.
What does the trailer of 'Udaipur Files' contain?
The trailer is alleged to include inflammatory dialogues and references to sensitive communal issues, raising concerns about the film's narrative.
How does the PIL challenge the CBFC's certification?
The petition argues that the film violates Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act and that the CBFC's certification is unjustified given the film's content.
What are the potential implications of this case?
The outcome could influence future cases regarding freedom of expression, communal harmony, and the responsibility of filmmakers in portraying sensitive subjects.
