Madras High Court Division Bench Overturns Single Judge Order on Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Release
In a significant legal development, a division bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a single judge order that had directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to clear the Vijay-starrer film 'Jana Nayagan' for theater release. The decision was delivered on Tuesday by the first bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan.
Case Remanded for Fresh Consideration with CBFC Hearing
The division bench has remanded the case back to the single judge for fresh consideration, emphasizing the necessity of granting adequate opportunity to the CBFC to present its case. This move comes after the bench identified procedural lapses in the initial hearing process.
The bench observed that the single judge should have provided the CBFC with a chance to present its arguments, particularly in light of serious allegations raised by a board member regarding the film's content. These allegations reportedly include scenes depicting foreign powers creating disturbances in the country and content potentially affecting religious harmony.
Legal Oversight in Single Judge's Order
The division bench pointed out a critical legal oversight in the single judge's order. While the petition filed by KVN Productions LLP only sought the issuance of a certificate for the theater release of the movie and did not challenge the decision of the CBFC chairperson to refer the film to a revising committee, the single judge proceeded to quash the chairperson's order.
"The single judge should not have gone into the merits of the case in the absence of any prayer challenging the chairperson's order," the court stated. The bench has granted liberty to the petitioner to amend their prayer suitably to address this aspect.
CBFC's Appeal and Arguments
The division bench passed this order while allowing an appeal moved by the CBFC, challenging the single judge's directive. Representing the CBFC, additional advocate-general A R L Sundaresan, assisted by advocate A R Sakthivel, submitted that the board was not given an opportunity to file its counter-affidavit in response to the plea moved by the film's makers before the single judge.
He further argued that the single judge quashed the CBFC's communication dated January 5, which called for a review of the film by the revising committee, even though this specific communication was not challenged by the petitioner, KVN Productions LLP.
Producer's Counter-Arguments
On behalf of the producer, senior advocate Satish Parasaran presented counter-arguments. He contended that the regional office of the CBFC had unanimously recommended granting a UA certificate to the film, and this recommendation was communicated to the producer. However, he alleged that one of the members later made a different decision and raised a complaint against the movie, which he claimed was against the law.
Parasaran added that the decision to review the movie was based on a complaint by a member of the examining committee. He argued that, as per the statute, members of the examining committee should never become complainants, highlighting what he described as a procedural irregularity in the CBFC's actions.
This case underscores the complexities involved in film certification processes in India, particularly when legal procedures intersect with content evaluation. The remand for fresh consideration ensures that both parties will have a fair opportunity to present their cases, potentially setting a precedent for similar disputes in the future.
