CBFC Conscious Of Need To Protect Citizens' Cultural, Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court Upholds Refusal To Certify Tamil Film

Justice R Kalaimathi noted that the CBFC and the examining committee had, in unison, concluded that the movie was violative of guideline 2(xii) in several places and was not suitable for public exhibition.

The court held that the Board more conscious about the need to protect the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the Indian citizens. The court also noted that Board had clearly stated the reasons for refusing certification. Thus, finding no infirmity, the court refused to interfere with the CBFC's order.

It may be noted that, as per Guideline 2(xii), the CBFC shall ensure that the visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented.

“In the above circumstances, this Court of the considered view that the Central Board of Film Certification and Examining Committee and the Members of the Examining Committee have come to a conclusion in unison that the film is violative of guidelines 2(xii) in several sequences in dialogues as well as visuals and is therefore, not suitable for public exhibition. The Central Board of Film Certification is more conscious of the need to maintain the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the citizens of India. The reasons for refusals have been duly stated, and the portrayal in the film is violative of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

The producer of the movie had approached the court challenging the “refusal certificate” granted to the movie by the CBFC. It was argued that the certificate was against the principles of natural justice, since no opportunity was given to the producer to offer an explanation.

The producer argued that even assuming that some scenes in the movie were found to be in violation of the statutory guidelines prescribed under the Cinematograph Act, the Board should have granted a conditional certificate instead of issuing a refusal certificate. It was argued that the refusal certificate lacked specificity and amounted to a clear violation of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Board argued that the movie was examined in accordance with the guidelines issued under the Cinematograph Act and the film deals with sensitive issues relating to cultural and religious beliefs and practices and violated the guidelines, both in dialogues and visuals and thus, was not suitable for public exhibition.

Upon perusing the materials, the court observed that the Board had given an opportunity to the producer to put forth his views before the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee. Thus, the court noted that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned orders.

The court noted that while the film maker has the freedom to express himself in a manner not prohibited by law, he would be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

“This Court is of the considered view that a film has to be viewed from the perspective of an ordinary person and it has to be judged in its entirety.. Any film is required to be judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact, and is to be examined in the light of the period depicted in the film and whether it confirms to the restrictions imposed by Article 19(2) of Constitution of India,” the court observed.

In the present case, the court noted that the movie depicted a Christian hero Lawrence, who was a singer and a Hindu heroine Lakshmi, who was a Bharatanatyam dancer. The court noted that it might not be easy for persons belonging to one particular sect to accept portrayals that may affect their cultural, religious beliefs and practices.

The court noted that excision or modification was also not possible in the present case since in almost all the scenes where the hero and heroine appear, the hero asks the heroine to perform Bharatanatyam for his Christian songs.

Thus, the court noted that the Board had passed the order after considering all aspects and the same did not require any interference. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the Board.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. T. Mohan Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Chandramohan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. R. Samratt Standing Counsel

Case Title: Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277

Case No: CMA No. 73 of 2026