'Will Consider': Madras High Court On CBFC's Urgent Appeal Motion Against Order To Grant U/A Certificate To Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Film

The Central Board of Film Certificate on Friday (January 9) urgently mentioned listing of its appeal before the Madras High Court, against single judge's order directing it to grant U/A certificate for Vijay starrer 'Jana Nayagan' movie forthwith.

For context Justice PT Asha pronounced the order today at 10:30 allowing the producers' plea.

Minutes thereafter, ASG ARL Sundaresan for CBFC made an urgent mention before a bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava for listing of its appeal against the order.

The Chief Justice asked if the appeal has been filed to which the ASG said that the order was passed right now.

The court thereafter asked the ASG to file the appeal and mention the matter again. "You file, we'll consider," the CJ said.

As per news reports, the release of the film which was earlier scheduled for today, has been postponed.

For context, the producer of the movie KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana had on January 5 received an email from CBFC's Regional Office informing that the competent authority had decided to refer the movie to the Revising Committee as per Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules based on a complaint alleging that the contents of the movie hurt religious sentiments and regarding its portrayal of the armed forces.

Justice Asha while pronouncing the order had said: "After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought".

The court had said that entertaining such complaints would give rise to "dangerous trend".

The court further said that the CBFC chairperson's letter uploaded on January 6 is without jurisdiction. It further said that once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow.

It further said: "Exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction since the power of chairperson to send for review stood abdicated after he, on behalf of committee informed that UA certificate would be granted subject to incisions".

It further said that since the order is without jurisdiction, the high court, using its inherent powers can modify the relief.

The high court thus set aside the letter of the CBFC chairperson sending the movie to the review committee. It further allowed the petition and directed CBFC to issue UA certificate for the film forthwith.

The court had reserved the orders on Wednesday after hearing Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran for the production house and Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for the CBFC.

KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, who is producing the movie, has approached the court alleging that the movie's certification is being unreasonably withheld and delayed, which would in turn would cause massive financial loss to the producers of the movie.

It was submitted that on December 22, a communication was received from the Regional Office informing that the Examining Committee had recommended granting a "UA" certificate for the movie, subject to the compliance of certain excisions and modifications specified in the communication.

It was further submitted that these modifications had been carried out and the movie was resubmitted following which, on December 29, the regional office informed that the movie would be given a UA certificate.

On the other hand, the CBFC argued that the Chairperson was not bound by the decision of the Examining Committee and could order a review even after the committee had viewed the film.

It was submitted that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the Chairperson could differ from the committee's opinion either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint.

It was argued that, if after examination and opinion, even one committee member raised objections, the Chairperson could consider those objections and send the film to the Revising Committee. In the present case, it was argued that one of the committee member had sent the complaint stating that his objections were not considered.