India: Delhi High Court Stays Release of Film About a Jihad Murder After Muslim Groups Complain

The Delhi High Court has imposed an interim stay on the release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, citing concerns over “communal harmony and public order.” The order came just one day before the film was scheduled to be released on Friday, July 11.

A division bench led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal issued the stay and directed the petitioners to approach the Union government under Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This provision allows the Centre to suspend or revoke a film’s certification if its public screening is likely to provoke unrest. The court has requested that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting review the representation and make a decision within one week.

The stay was granted in response to a petition filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and other Muslim community members, who argued that the film contained inflammatory content likely to hurt their religious sentiments. They also alleged that the film’s trailer featured provocative dialogue and imagery that could disturb public order.

While the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already cleared the film after recommending 55 cuts, the petitioners contended that the content still posed a significant threat to India’s communal harmony. The High Court appeared to agree to assert that CBFC certification alone does not eliminate the need for further scrutiny, particularly on films that may impact the sentiments of a particular community.

The filmmakers, expressing deep disappointment, emphasized that they had secured all necessary clearances through official channels. Producer Amit Jani has since filed an urgent appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s stay. He argues that the order infringes upon their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.

The film Udaipur Files is based on the murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, who was brutally beheaded in broad daylight on June 28, 2022, by two Islamic jihadis, Mohammad Riyaz Attari and Ghous Mohammad. They also filmed the gruesome killing, released the films on the internet, and declared the murder an act of retribution for Lal’s alleged support of remarks made by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma about the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The video circulated widely on social media, sparked nationwide outrage, and heightened communal tensions across Rajasthan and other parts of India.

Kanhaiya Lal’s son, Yash Sahu, has condemned the legal hurdles obstructing the release of the film based on his father’s murder. “When someone wants to show the truth, there is a whole campaign to stop them. But when my father was murdered, no one came forward for justice in the same way,” he told reporters.

While one Indian court blocks a film portraying a verified act of Islamic terror, another has allowed two of the accused in the same case to walk free on bail. This stark contradiction has amplified public discontent and intensified scrutiny of India’s judicial integrity.

Despite overwhelming evidence, including the widely circulated video showing the crime, courts have granted bail to two of the accused, citing “insufficient evidence.” In 2023, Farhad Mohammad Sheikh, who was charged under the Arms Act for allegedly supplying a sword used in the murder, was granted bail by a special NIA court. Again, in September 2024, Mohammed Javed, accused of surveying Kanhaiya Lal’s shop and providing logistical assistance to the killers, was also released on bail by the Rajasthan High Court.

Legal experts and ordinary citizens alike are questioning how a case backed by visual documentation, public confessions, and detailed charges could result in the release of its conspirators on the grounds of “no evidence.” These rulings highlight how the application of justice in India brazenly works for Muslim interests.

Yash Sahu echoed the sentiment, calling the bail orders “a betrayal of justice.” He believes that his father’s murder was not just a personal tragedy, but a calculated ideological act intended to instill fear. “Everyone saw the video. This wasn’t a private dispute. It was political, it was ideological, and it was meant to terrorize,” he said. “And yet two of the people involved in the planning are walking free.”

We are left wondering if the courts are interpreting evidence too narrowly, demanding direct physical linkage even when ideological and logistical support for terrorism is evident. The UAPA was particularly enacted to hold broader conspiratorial networks accountable, but its application here appears to be diluted. Is the Indian judiciary bending over backward to protect Islamic sentiments and the Muslim perpetrators of serious crimes?

These developments have fueled broader questions about whether India’s judiciary is failing Hindu victims in cases involving Islamic terror or communal violence. Some commentators have openly speculated that if the roles were reversed if the victim were Muslim and the accused Hindu, the course of justice might have looked drastically different.

Halting the release of a film that documents a factual and verified crime carried out in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings while having allowed two accused to be released on bail paints a troubling picture of India’s judicial orientation. It reinforces a growing perception that the system is overly sensitive to one community while ignoring the pain and trauma of another.

Social media platforms are abuzz with disgruntled citizens arguing that this is part of a larger pattern within India’s justice system, one that includes granting midnight hearings to terrorist convicts and quoting Oscar Wilde to extend mercy to rapists of minor girls.

As the film’s fate hangs in the balance and two of the accused walk free, the family of Kanhaiya Lal continues to wait. Not just for a movie to be released, but for justice to be delivered.