Maulana Arshad Madani Vs Union of India

Cinema, Censorship, and Communal Harmony

Introduction:The case of Maulana Arshad Madani vs Union of India & Ors, decided by the Delhi High Court on 10th July 2025, delves into the complex intersection between freedom of expression, public order, and the regulatory mechanisms governing film certification in India. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the certification of the film “Udaipur Files” by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petitioner contended that the film promoted communal disharmony and vilification of a specific community, thereby violating statutory principles and constitutional values. The case raises important questions about the limits of creative freedom, the regulatory framework for film certification, and the remedies available to an aggrieved party post-certification.

Factual Background:The petitioner, Maulana Arshad Madani, approached the Delhi High Court asserting that the film “Udaipur Files” was granted certification for public exhibition by the CBFC on 20th June 2025. Following the certification, the producers of the film released its teaser/trailer on social media platforms on 26th June 2025. The teaser contained several portions that were allegedly not certified or were part of the scenes directed to be excised by the CBFC. This prompted the CBFC to issue a Show Cause Notice to the producer on 1st July 2025, citing violation of Rule 27 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The producer responded to the notice on 2nd July 2025, admitting that an uncensored teaser was uploaded due to contractual obligations and promotional commitments.

The petitioner argued that the film, even after the cuts ordered by the CBFC, continued to depict a particular religious community in a negative and violent light, suggesting their involvement in terrorist activities and communal violence. The petitioner alleged that this portrayal could incite hatred, disrupt public order, and compromise communal harmony. The grievance was not limited to the teaser but extended to the entire thematic presentation of the film, which, according to the petitioner, was designed to vilify an entire community.

Procedural Background:The writ petition, W.P.(C) 9362/2025, was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the film’s certification and to restrain its release. On 9th July 2025, the Court directed that a special screening of the film and its trailer be arranged for the counsels of all parties to enable them to make informed submissions. The screening was conducted, and both the petitioner and the respondents submitted notes to the Court summarizing their observations.

During the hearing, the respondents urged the Court to defer the matter, citing the pendency of a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, where similar issues were allegedly raised. The respondents also referred to media reports suggesting that the Supreme Court had permitted the film’s release. However, the petitioner contested this by pointing out that the Supreme Court merely declined to grant an urgent hearing and no written order permitting release was passed. The Delhi High Court rejected the request to defer the proceedings, noting the absence of any binding order from the Supreme Court staying the proceedings or directing the release of the film.

Core Dispute:The central issue before the Court was whether the certification granted by the CBFC to the film “Udaipur Files” violated the principles enshrined in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the statutory guidelines notified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 6th December 1991. The petitioner contended that the film propagated communal hatred and could incite violence, making its release a threat to public order and contrary to the constitutional mandate of promoting fraternity and unity. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the CBFC, comprising experts in film making, had already directed 55 cuts to address concerns and that the film, in its certified form, did not warrant judicial interference.

Discussion on Judgments:The respondents relied on several precedents to argue against judicial interference in matters of film certification. The case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574, was cited to emphasize the principle that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation created by such expression is bound to lead to public disorder, and even then, the anticipated danger must not be remote or conjectural.

In Prakash Jha Productions & Anr. v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 372, the Supreme Court held that once a film is certified by the CBFC, interference by courts should be limited and must consider the expertise of the Board in matters of art and expression.

The decision in Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 1 SCC 761, reiterated the principle that public exhibition of certified films cannot be obstructed except under extraordinary circumstances or unless the certification is stayed or set aside by a competent authority.

The petitioner, however, relied on Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court distinguished between hate speech and free speech, holding that the constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to expressions that incite violence or hatred against a community.

The respondents also referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta v. Bhansali Productions, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 372, where it was held that once a film is certified, the appropriate remedy lies either in a challenge under Article 226 or by approaching the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act. The Court in that case discouraged any attempt by private individuals or groups to obstruct the release of certified films through extra-legal measures.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court analyzed the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Court noted that Section 5A empowers the CBFC to grant certification, while Section 5B lays down prohibitions where certification is not permissible, including instances where a film may threaten public order, incite an offence, or defame a particular group.

The Court emphasized that the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 6th December 1991 are binding on the CBFC and must be scrupulously followed. These guidelines require the Board to ensure that films do not contain content that vilifies a community, promotes communal hatred, or offends human sensibilities.

The Bench also discussed the scope of Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, particularly after its amendment in 2023. The amended provision empowers the Central Government to suspend or revoke a film’s certification, declare it uncertified, or alter its certification category. The Court observed that although the phrase “of its own motion” was omitted in the amended Section 6, the Central Government could still exercise revisional jurisdiction both suo motu and upon receiving complaints from aggrieved persons.

Taking note of the statutory remedies available under Section 6, the Court held that the petitioner ought to have first approached the Central Government before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. However, considering the seriousness of the allegations regarding potential communal disharmony, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Central Government under Section 6 within a stipulated timeline.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument that the overall thematic expression of the film, despite the cuts, was likely to incite hatred and violate the guidelines issued under the Act. However, since the statutory framework provided an alternative remedy with adequate powers vested in the Central Government, the Court decided not to adjudicate the merits directly at this stage.

Final Decision:The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner may approach the Central Government by filing a revision under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, by 14th July 2025. The Court further directed that if the petitioner makes an application for interim relief, including the suspension of the film’s exhibition, the Central Government shall decide the same within one week after giving an opportunity of hearing to the producer of the film.

As an interim measure, the Court stayed the release of the film “Udaipur Files” until the Central Government decides on the application for interim relief. The Court also noted the pending action by the CBFC against the producer for violating Rule 27 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, by releasing an uncertified teaser and directed that appropriate legal action in that regard be taken as per law.

Law Settled in This Case:This case reinforces the principle that judicial review of CBFC certification is available under Article 226 of the Constitution, but where statutory remedies exist, such as revision under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, they must ordinarily be exhausted first. The judgment clarifies that the Central Government retains revisional powers even after the 2023 amendment of Section 6, which can be invoked by an aggrieved party post-certification.

The case also reiterates the binding nature of the 1991 guidelines on film certification and underscores the obligation of the CBFC to evaluate the film in its entirety, considering its overall impact on public order, morality, and communal harmony. Additionally, it highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and protection against hate speech in the context of artistic works like films

Case Title: Maulana Arshad Madani vs Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order: 10.07.2025

Case Number: W.P.(C) 9362/2025 

Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:5466-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Judges: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi