Madras High Court Delves into 'Jana Nayagan' Censorship Dispute
The Madras High Court has commenced its hearing on the contentious 'Jana Nayagan' censorship controversy. This case centers squarely on whether the Central Board of Film Certification adhered to the required statutory procedures. The board first issued and then withdrew the certification for the film, sparking this legal battle.
Core Issue: Was the CBFC's Procedure Fair?
A pivotal question before the court involves the board's communication dated January 5. On that date, the CBFC informed the producers that the film was being sent for a review. The court is scrutinizing whether this action can be legally challenged. A key concern is whether the film's producers received adequate time to prepare and submit their response to this development.
Furthermore, the judicial bench is closely examining the roles of various CBFC bodies. The court seeks to determine which specific committee or panel actually viewed 'Jana Nayagan.' It also aims to clarify who possessed the legitimate authority to revise the initial certification decision.
CBFC's Stance: Defending Its Process
Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan presented the board's arguments. He contended that the producers were not entitled to immediate relief. His reasoning was that the January 5 decision to send the film for review was not challenged by the producers in a timely manner.
The ASG outlined the board's internal process. After the examining committee recommended 14 cuts for the film, the matter proceeded to the full board. A subsequent complaint then prompted the board to place its own decision on hold. Sundaresan insisted that the January 5 communication was merely an interim step, not a final and binding order. Therefore, he argued, the producers could not claim an automatic right to certification.
On a procedural note, the ASG also raised the issue of filing time. He submitted that a day or two should be considered sufficient for the producers to file their counter. He maintained that the single judge's earlier order, which granted relief to the producers, went beyond what was requested in the original writ petition. Consequently, he argued that decision should not have been overturned.
Producers' Counter: A Decision Cannot Be Revoked
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the film's producers, offered a forceful rebuttal. He argued that the CBFC had already reached a conclusive decision to certify the film. This came after the examining committee gave its unanimous recommendation.
Parasaran provided a timeline to support his claim. The producers received the certification message on January 5. Crucially, the decision was officially loaded onto the e-cinepraman website on January 6. According to the senior advocate, this action represented the board's final decision. Once made, such a decision cannot be recalled or sent back for reconsideration without granting the affected party a proper hearing.
The producers also pointed to alleged procedural lapses. They stated that relevant CBFC documents and letters were not uploaded to the official portal, which they claim violates established rules. Additionally, they argued that any later complaint about the film became irrelevant. This is because the 14 cuts originally required by the examining committee had already been fully implemented by the producers.
Court Reserves Order on Critical Legal Questions
After hearing extensive arguments from both legal teams, the bench has reserved its orders. The judges stated they need time to carefully consider the statutory framework under the Cinematograph Act and its associated Rules.
The court will deliberate on several fundamental questions:
- Does the CBFC board possess the legal power to send a film to a revising committee after it has already issued an initial certification?
- Were the producers given adequate and reasonable time to file their counter-affidavit in this case?
- Was the single judge's earlier decision properly within the scope of the prayers made in the original writ petition?
The judges noted that a primary consideration is whether due process was followed. They must decide if this complex matter can be disposed of in a single day of hearing. With all arguments now concluded, the Madras High Court has reserved its judgment. No specific date has been announced for the pronouncement of the order. Both parties must now await the court's final decision, which will determine the fate of the 'Jana Nayagan' film certification.
