KANHAIYA LAL MURDER ACCUSED APPROACHES SUPREME COURT TO HALT RELEASE OF 'UDAIPUR FILES', CITING THREAT TO FAIR TRIAL:

An accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking to halt the release of the upcoming film titled "Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder." The petitioner, Mohammed Javed, who is the eighth accused in the high-profile case currently under trial, filed a writ petition arguing that the film’s release would infringe upon his fundamental right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The film, according to Javed, is said to be based on the real-life events surrounding the gruesome killing of Kanhaiya Lal Teli, a tailor based in Udaipur, Rajasthan, who was murdered in broad daylight in June 2022. The murder, allegedly carried out by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, was captured on video and widely circulated. The accused were purportedly motivated by a social media post shared by Kanhaiya Lal in support of then-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, following her controversial remarks about the Prophet. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the case and charged the accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The trial is currently underway before the Special NIA Court in Jaipur.

Javed’s petition contends that the film, scheduled for release on July 11, could gravely prejudice the ongoing trial. He asserted that the film’s promotional material and trailer appear to be communally charged and sensational in nature. He submitted that the narrative portrayed in the film treats the accused as if their guilt has already been established and presents the events as conclusive, even though the legal proceedings are still in progress. Such representation, according to Javed, has the potential to severely compromise the judicial process by creating a biased public perception.

The petitioner emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, and releasing a movie that implies guilt ahead of a court verdict directly undermines this principle. He maintained that the screening of the film at this juncture could influence public opinion in a manner that adversely affects the fairness and impartiality of the trial. This, he claimed, would amount to a direct violation of his right to a free and fair trial, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In support of his plea, Javed also cited Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which grants the Central Government special revisional powers to suspend or revoke the certification of a film in the public interest. He urged the government to exercise this power, stating that the emotionally provocative content of the film could disrupt communal harmony and potentially inflame tensions. He argued that the storyline, as reflected in its promotions, is not only insensitive but could also interfere with the integrity of the judicial process. In such circumstances, he stated, the intervention of the Central Government is both necessary and justified in order to uphold the rule of law and to prevent further erosion of faith in the justice system.

Separately, the prominent Islamic clerical body, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, has also taken legal action against the film’s release. On the previous day, the organization moved the Delhi High Court, contending that the film was communally divisive and could incite disharmony. The petition in that matter was filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Pyoli. The legal challenges thus highlight the growing concerns over the intersection of media portrayal and the fundamental rights of individuals under trial.