MADRAS HIGH COURT QUASHES SINGLE BENCH ORDER ON ‘JANA NAYAGAN’ CERTIFICATION, ORDERS FRESH HEARING:

The Madras High Court on Tuesday, January 27, set aside an order passed by a single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a U/A certificate to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring actor Vijay. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan remitted the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, holding that principles of natural justice had not been followed.

The Division Bench observed that the CBFC had not been given an adequate opportunity to place its stand on record before the earlier order was passed. It therefore directed the single judge to hear the matter afresh after allowing the CBFC to respond. The Bench also granted liberty to the film’s producer, KVN Productions, to amend the writ petition.

While setting aside the earlier order, the court took note of the seriousness of the allegations raised in the complaint against the film, which had prompted the CBFC Chairperson to refer the movie to a Revising Committee. In such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the single judge ought to have provided the CBFC an opportunity to defend the decision taken by its Chairperson. The Bench further observed that the single judge should not have examined the merits of the controversy in the absence of any specific prayer challenging the Chairperson’s order referring the film for review.

Accordingly, the producers were directed to amend their prayer before the writ court to specifically challenge the Chairperson’s decision. The Division Bench reiterated that a determination on merits without affording sufficient opportunity to the statutory authority was not warranted.

The appeal arose from an order dated January 9, by which the single judge had ruled in favour of the production house and directed the CBFC to certify the film without further delay. The single judge had held that the decision to send the film for review after indicating that it would be certified was beyond jurisdiction and had also disapproved of entertaining complaints from members of the examining committee after recommendations had already been made.

Following that order, an urgent mention was made before the Chief Justice’s Bench, which stayed the operation of the single judge’s directions on the same day. The Division Bench had also expressed displeasure over the producers seeking urgent relief and observed that such conduct appeared to create undue pressure on the judicial system. The court thereafter continued hearing the appeal and reserved its judgment on January 20 after detailed submissions.

The dispute originated after the CBFC delayed certification of Jana Nayagan, which is expected to be actor Vijay’s final film before his formal entry into politics. KVN Productions approached the High Court alleging that despite being informed that the film would receive a U/A certificate subject to certain modifications, the certificate was not issued even after the suggested changes were made. The producers also questioned the decision to send the film to the Revising Committee after an indication had already been given regarding certification.

The CBFC, however, explained that the referral to the Revising Committee followed a complaint from a member of the examining committee, who alleged that his objections had not been adequately considered. According to the CBFC, the complaint raised concerns that certain scenes could hurt religious sentiments and portray the armed forces inaccurately.

During the appellate proceedings, the CBFC, represented by Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, argued that the Board was not given time to file a counter affidavit and that the producers had not challenged the communication dated January 6 referring the film for review. The producers, represented by Senior Advocates Satish Parasaran and Pradeep Rai, contended that the examining committee had unanimously recommended certification and that the Chairperson’s decision for review was neither shared formally nor justified, especially when the objections cited related to scenes that had already been removed.