'Jana Nayagan' Movie Case : Live Updates From Madras High Court Hearing | CBFC Appeal against Vijay's Film
The Madras High Court will continue hearing today an appeal filed by the CBFC challenging a single judge's order asking it to give U/A certificate for the 'JanaNayagan' movie starring Tamil actor-politician Vijay.The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will hear the appeal. On January 9th, a single judge had directed the CBFC to forthwith certify...
The Madras High Court will continue hearing today an appeal filed by the CBFC challenging a single judge's order asking it to give U/A certificate for the 'JanaNayagan' movie starring Tamil actor-politician Vijay.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will hear the appeal. On January 9th, a single judge had directed the CBFC to forthwith certify the movie. However, the division bench stayed the single bench's order the same day evening.
Though this order was challenged in the Supreme Court by producer KVN Production, the Court refused to interfere, noting that the High Court was scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.
Follow this page for live updates from the hearing.
BREAKING | Madras High Court RESERVES ORDERS on appeal filed by CBFC challenging an order of single judge directing it to give UA certificate for Jana Nayagan movie
ORDERS RESERVED
ASG: The standing committee recommendation says central govt cannot recall or review after the certification. Here, the board is exercising its powers. Any issue can be decided only in a writ of certiorari after issuing notice
Arguments conclude
Bench is discussing
ASG says suo moto power is based on information received. Says it cannot be said that information can be received from any person in the world except the 5 members
ASG: While showing armed force, protocol should be followed. It may not be decided by the committee alone, expert may be called. Whether the complaint is proper is to be decided by the chairperson
ASG says it is not correct to say that member cannot give a complaint at later point. Says there was compliant that Armed force was not shown properly.
ASG makes rejoinder arguments
ASG says that facts can be seen as admitted only if an opportunity is given to counter
Rai argues that the producers were not given any documents
Argues that when the chairman has already decided, on behalf of board, to certify the film, he could not have sent it back
Parasaran concludes his argument by saying that the Chairperson could not have gone back on his decision
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai begins arguments (for production company)