Bhatkal: Tanzeem calls for ban on ‘Udaipur Files’, says film spreads hate, misrepresents Islam
Bhatkal, July 10: The Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem, a prominent socio-religious organisation based in Bhatkal, has opposed the release of the controversial film Udaipur Files, alleging that it spreads misinformation, promotes communal hatred, and targets the Muslim community in a biased manner. In a press statement issued on Thursday, the organisation demanded an immediate and permanent ban on the film, warning that its release would only deepen existing communal divisions in the country.
The Tanzeem stated that the movie, which claims to be based on real events, selectively portrays an entire community in a negative light under the pretext of truth-telling. “The film includes objectionable references to Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and distorts Islamic teachings. Such content is not only offensive to Muslims but also poses a grave threat to the nation’s social harmony,” the statement said.
Drawing parallels to previously released films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story, the Tanzeem alleged that Udaipur Files follows the same pattern of presenting one-sided narratives under the garb of cinema, with the intent to fuel hatred and mistrust. The organisation noted that such films had previously triggered a rise in communal tensions across the country and feared a similar fallout with the release of Udaipur Files.
“Let us be clear — films like these do not promote justice or dialogue. They manufacture fear and spread prejudice,” the statement noted, adding that the movie arrives at a time when communal harmony is fragile and the legal proceedings in the Udaipur incident are still underway. “To fictionalise and communalise an ongoing case through a cinematic portrayal is not only irresponsible but also dangerous,” the statement read.
The organisation urged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the government to act responsibly and prevent the release of the film in any format — whether in theatres, television, or online platforms. According to the Tanzeem, permitting the film’s release would set a dangerous precedent and embolden more such productions that aim to vilify specific communities.
“In case the film is released despite these concerns, we call upon all peace-loving and secular-minded citizens of India to register their protest and oppose this growing trend of communal propaganda through cinema,” the Tanzeem said.
The statement further expressed alarm over the growing misuse of cinema to legitimise fringe ideologies and communal narratives, warning that such content does not remain limited to entertainment halls but seeps into classrooms, workplaces, homes, and public discourse — affecting society at large.
Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem also urged political parties to take a clear and principled stand against the release of such films. “Those who claim to stand for secularism, democracy and justice must not remain silent in this hour. Silence will only embolden those who seek to divide the country,” it said.
Reiterating its long-standing commitment to communal harmony, peaceful coexistence, and the rule of law, the organisation stated that any criminal act — including the tragic Udaipur incident — must be dealt with strictly under the law and not through provocative and biased portrayals on the silver screen.
Calling for a broader public engagement on the matter, the Tanzeem appealed to civil society groups, student organisations, legal experts, journalists, and filmmakers to stand against content that distorts facts and undermines constitutional values. “India’s strength lies in its unity and diversity. We must not let films become weapons that poison minds and tear our society apart,” the organisation concluded.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
