'Statutory Right Of Appeal Can't Be Curtailed On Technicalities': Kerala High Court Directs Registry To Accept Appeals U/S 5C Cinematograph Act

The Division Bench consisting of Justice Arvind Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan made the suggestion while dismissing the writ appeals challenging the movie 'Haal'.

The Union had made a challenge to the maintainability of the petition since the same was considered as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to it, since there was an appeal provision under Section 5C of the Cinematograph, such practice ought not continue.

Though the filmmakers had initially preferred an appeal under the section, the same was not accepted by the Registry due to non-existence of specific nomenclature. This, the Court felt, was a technical ground that restricts the statutory right of appeal.

“As per Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, an appeal has been provided to the High Court, from the orders passed by the Censor Board at the instance of a person aggrieved. In the instant case, the impugned judgment would go to show that the writ petition came to be entertained by the learned Single Judge only because of the fact that this Court was not accepting such appeals due to the absence of a specific nomenclature for filing the appeal under Section 5C. It is beyond doubt that when a statutory right of appeal is provided to a person, the same cannot be curtailed on technical grounds such as the one referred to above,” the Court had opined.

The Bench had then directed the Registry to accept appeals as MFA (Cinematograph Act) until the Registry comes up with a specific nomenclature:

“In such circumstances, while holding that the present case will not be treated as a precedent, we hereby direct the Registry to accept and entertain appeals filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under the nomenclature MFA (Cinematograph Act) until, a specific nomenclature is adopted by issuing appropriate notifications/modifications. We also hope that the Registry will ensure compliance of the afore order, without much delay.”

With these directions, the Court disposed of the appeals.

Case Nos: WA 2803/ 2025 & WA 2926/ 2025

Case Titles: Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Ors. & Union of India and Ors. v. Juby Thomas and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 821

Counsel for the appellants: Mariya Rajan, S. Suja, Ann Mariya John, Felix Samson Varghese – Catholic Congress, S. Anil Kumar (Cherthala) - RSS office bearer, G. Sreekumar (Chelur) - Senior Panel Counsel

Counsel for the respondents: Joseph Kodianthara (Sr.), E.S. Saneej, John Vithayathil

Click to Read/Download Judgment