Maulana Arshad Madani Vs Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court Judgment
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
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judges: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal
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 released its teaser/trailer on social media on 26th June 2025, containing several allegedly uncertified portions.
The CBFC issued a Show Cause Notice to the producer on 1st July 2025 under Rule 27 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The producer responded on 2nd July 2025, admitting the uncensored teaser was uploaded due to contractual obligations and promotional commitments.
The petitioner argued that the film, even after CBFC-ordered cuts, continued to depict a religious community negatively, suggesting involvement in terrorism and communal violence. This, the petitioner claimed, could incite hatred and disturb communal harmony.
Procedural Background
The writ petition, W.P.(C) 9362/2025, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the film’s certification and restrain its release. On 9th July 2025, the Court directed a special screening of the film and trailer for all parties’ counsels. Both petitioner and respondents submitted notes summarizing their observations.
The respondents urged deferment, citing a pending writ before the Supreme Court under Article 32 involving similar issues. They referred to media reports that the Supreme Court permitted the film’s release. The petitioner countered that no such order was passed. The Delhi High Court rejected deferment, citing no binding stay or release order from the Supreme Court.
Core Dispute
The main issue was whether the CBFC certification of “Udaipur Files” violated Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the 1991 guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The petitioner alleged the film incited communal hatred. The respondents argued that 55 cuts were made, and no further judicial interference was warranted.
Discussion on Judgments
The respondents cited several judgments:
- S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574 – Freedom of expression must not be suppressed unless it will lead to public disorder.
- Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372 – Courts must defer to CBFC’s expertise.
- Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 761 – Certified films may not be obstructed unless certification is stayed/set aside.
The petitioner relied on:
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 – Hate speech is not protected by Article 19(1)(a).
The respondents also referred to:
- Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta v. Bhansali Productions (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 372) – Appropriate remedy after certification lies under Article 226 or Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Division Bench analyzed the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It noted:
- Section 5A – Empowers CBFC to grant certification.
- Section 5B – Prohibits certification for films threatening public order or vilifying communities.
The Court emphasized the binding nature of the 1991 guidelines. It also discussed the amended Section 6 (2023), which still allows the Central Government to revise certification on complaints or suo motu.
While statutory remedies existed, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the petition and allowed the petitioner to file a revision under Section 6.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may approach the Central Government by 14th July 2025. If an application for interim relief is made, the Central Government must decide it within a week after hearing the producer.
As an interim measure, the Court stayed the release of the film “Udaipur Files” until the Central Government’s decision. The Court also directed the CBFC to take appropriate legal action for the teaser violation under Rule 27.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment affirms that judicial review under Article 226 remains available post-certification, but statutory remedies like Section 6 must generally be exhausted first.
The Court reaffirmed the 1991 guidelines’ binding nature and the CBFC’s responsibility to ensure communal harmony. It emphasized the need to balance freedom of expression with protection against hate speech.
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
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
