NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the special committee constituted by the ministry of information and broadcasting to decide by Monday pleas opposing screening of censor board-cleared ' Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' on the ground that the movie, based on the beheading of the Udaipur tailor for allegedly blaspheming Prophet Muhammad, marked shocking and vicious vilification of Muslims.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Maulana Arshad Madani, and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for prime accused in Kanhaiya Lal's beheading case Mohammad Javed, argued against release of the film alleging that it vilified a particular community, would prejudice the trial in the murder case, put the accused's life in danger and also derogated the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also asked the police to ensure protection of the producer of the film and his son who have received death threats.
For the film producer, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia told the bench that the film was cleared by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after incorporation of 55 cuts. He said the petitioners moved Delhi HC at the eleventh hour to stall release of the film, adding that the producer was suffering huge losses apart from stifling of his free speech .
Terming the case a contest between right to free speech and right to life, the Justice Kant-led bench asked the committee constituted by the I&B ministry to decide Madani's representation against the release of the film by Monday, the next date of hearing. It also allowed counsel for the main accused in the beheading case to participate in the proceedings before the committee.
The bench those who apprehend the trial getting prejudiced had a right to be heard.
It also considered the threats allegedly received by the producer and his son warning them against releasing the film. The SC asked the police to evaluate the threat perception and take appropriate steps to protect them.
Sibal said he, as counsel for Madani, had watched the film during an HC-ordered special screening. "Once I saw the movie, I was shaken in every sense. It is a complete thematic dissertation of hate."
The bench pointed to Sibal's advocacy of free speech and recalled telling the senior advocate that he would one day be arguing against free speech. This is one such occasion, Justice Kant said.
Sibal said, "See the movie. It is something that generates violence... seeds violence. It is complete vilification of one community and not one positive aspect of the community is projected in the movie - violence, homosexuality, denigration of women. It is unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow screening of such a film."
Bhatia said, "Beheading of the tailor and posting of its video on social media had more than one crore views. Videos were released prior to the beheading and after accomplishment of the sinister and gruesome act. None of the petitioners protested such a posting of video on social media. The film gives a message of communal harmony and is an appeal against violence."
Kanhaiya Lal had apologised for forwarding the post that the killers dubbed as sacrilegious.
Guruswamy said the accused Javed would be completely prejudiced during the trial if the film was released. "Free speech cannot be allowed to vitiate fair trial," she said, adding that certain remarks in the film by touching upon two sub-judice cases - the tailor beheading and Gyanvapi - also brought the judiciary into disrepute.
Justice Kant said the SC was not bothered about derogatory remarks against the judiciary, as it was used to daily bashing by so-called intellectuals. "We are used to this kind of bashing every day. Our judicial officers are not school-going children or adolescents to get affected by a movie or get swayed by a few dialogues in a film to decide a case. We are confident about their ability, competence, objectivity and the sense of detachment they carry," he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Maulana Arshad Madani, and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for prime accused in Kanhaiya Lal's beheading case Mohammad Javed, argued against release of the film alleging that it vilified a particular community, would prejudice the trial in the murder case, put the accused's life in danger and also derogated the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also asked the police to ensure protection of the producer of the film and his son who have received death threats.
For the film producer, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia told the bench that the film was cleared by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after incorporation of 55 cuts. He said the petitioners moved Delhi HC at the eleventh hour to stall release of the film, adding that the producer was suffering huge losses apart from stifling of his free speech .
Terming the case a contest between right to free speech and right to life, the Justice Kant-led bench asked the committee constituted by the I&B ministry to decide Madani's representation against the release of the film by Monday, the next date of hearing. It also allowed counsel for the main accused in the beheading case to participate in the proceedings before the committee.
The bench those who apprehend the trial getting prejudiced had a right to be heard.
It also considered the threats allegedly received by the producer and his son warning them against releasing the film. The SC asked the police to evaluate the threat perception and take appropriate steps to protect them.
Sibal said he, as counsel for Madani, had watched the film during an HC-ordered special screening. "Once I saw the movie, I was shaken in every sense. It is a complete thematic dissertation of hate."
The bench pointed to Sibal's advocacy of free speech and recalled telling the senior advocate that he would one day be arguing against free speech. This is one such occasion, Justice Kant said.
Sibal said, "See the movie. It is something that generates violence... seeds violence. It is complete vilification of one community and not one positive aspect of the community is projected in the movie - violence, homosexuality, denigration of women. It is unthinkable that a democratic nation would allow screening of such a film."
Bhatia said, "Beheading of the tailor and posting of its video on social media had more than one crore views. Videos were released prior to the beheading and after accomplishment of the sinister and gruesome act. None of the petitioners protested such a posting of video on social media. The film gives a message of communal harmony and is an appeal against violence."
Kanhaiya Lal had apologised for forwarding the post that the killers dubbed as sacrilegious.
Guruswamy said the accused Javed would be completely prejudiced during the trial if the film was released. "Free speech cannot be allowed to vitiate fair trial," she said, adding that certain remarks in the film by touching upon two sub-judice cases - the tailor beheading and Gyanvapi - also brought the judiciary into disrepute.
Justice Kant said the SC was not bothered about derogatory remarks against the judiciary, as it was used to daily bashing by so-called intellectuals. "We are used to this kind of bashing every day. Our judicial officers are not school-going children or adolescents to get affected by a movie or get swayed by a few dialogues in a film to decide a case. We are confident about their ability, competence, objectivity and the sense of detachment they carry," he said.
You may also like
Prince Harry's moving solo trip without Meghan days after 'peace summit' talks
Coronation Street 'to kill off' Billy Mayhew in shocking scenes as Daniel Brocklebank exits soap
Wimbledon Champions' Dinner menu revealed by British star as Sinner and Swiatek party
Lloyds and Santander close branches in huge blow to high street
Amy Bradley disappearance mystery unpacked as Netflix releases new documentary
