The Madras High Court began its hearing on the ‘Jana Nayagan’ censorship controversy, focusing on whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) followed the statutory procedure while issuing and later withdrawing certification for the film. The case hinges on a key issue: whether the board’s communication on January 5, stating that the film was being sent for review, could be challenged when the producers were not given adequate time to respond. The court also examined the role of the examining committee, the advisory panel, and the CBFC board, to determine who actually viewed the film and who had the authority to revise the decision.
CBFC argues lack of opportunity and challenges the writ court’s decision
ASG ARL Sundaresan, appearing for CBFC, argued that the producers were not entitled to immediate relief because the decision of January 5, sending the film for review, was not challenged in time. As per Livelaw, he explained that after the examining committee recommended 14 cuts, the matter was sent to the board, and a subsequent complaint led the board to place the decision on hold. He insisted that the board’s communication was merely an interim step and not a final order, and therefore the producers could not claim a right to certification. The ASG also raised the procedural issue of lack of time to file a counter, submitting that a day or two could be considered sufficient. He maintained that the single judge’s order granting relief was beyond the scope of the prayers made in the writ petition, and therefore the decision should not have been set aside.
Producers claim board cannot revoke a decision already taken
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the producers, countered that the CBFC had already decided to certify the film after the examining committee’s unanimous recommendation. He stated that the producers got the message on January 5 and the decision was loaded on the e-cinepraman website on January 6. According to him, this was a conclusive decision of the board, and once it was made, the board could not recall it or send it back to the producers for reconsideration without giving them a chance of being heard. He also stated that documents and letters made by the CBFC were not uploaded on the portal, which went against the other rules. The producers further claimed that any complaint was effectively rendered redundant because the 14 required cuts had already been made.
Court reserves orders on key legal questions
After hearing both sides, the bench said it needed to consider the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act and Rules, including whether the board had the power to send the film to a revising committee after issuing an initial certification. The court also asked whether the producers were given adequate time to file a counter and whether the single judge’s decision was within the scope of the writ petition’s prayers. As the judges noted, the primary question is whether it could be disposed of in a single day, considering whether due process has followed. With the arguments now concluded, the Madras High Court has reserved its orders in the ‘Jana Nayagan’ CBFC case, without giving a date, leaving both the parties to await the outcome of the case.Disclaimer: The information provided in this report is based on current judicial filings, court observations, and reports from legal correspondents. The information provided is for entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Release dates and censor certifications are subject to the final verdict of the Madras High Court and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
About the Author
