The Madras High Court on Tuesday continued hearing a plea filed by KVN Productions against the non-issuance of a censor certificate for Jana Nayagan. The case relates to the delay by the Central Board of Film Certification in granting certification to the film ahead of its scheduled Pongal release on January 9. The court heard detailed submissions from both sides, including the CBFC and the film’s producers.
Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan told the court that all materials, including a copy of a complaint received via email against the film, had been placed before the bench. He submitted that the review process was initiated based on this complaint and under the powers vested with the CBFC Chairperson.
Jana Nayagan's court proceeding details
During the hearing, Justice PT Asha questioned the grounds on which the film was sent for review. The court observed, “Now only ground on which you want to review the movie is based on the complaint, which on the face of it is not maintainable because all objections raised in the complaint has already been dealt with.” The court further noted that the objections raised by the examining committee had already been addressed, with incisions made and certain words muted, as per a Live Lar report.
The court also remarked, “You’re a responsible body. And when the body says that the entire exercise of revision is based on complaint, and complaint only says that the objections have not been considered.” Justice Asha pointed out that once the Chairperson decided to send the film for review, the producers should have been informed and not allowed to proceed with the changes without notice.
CBFC defends chairperson’s powers
ASG Sundaresan argued that the CBFC Chairperson is not bound by the decision of the examining committee. He submitted that under Rule 23(14), the Chairperson can differ from the committee’s opinion and can order a review either suo motu or based on information received, even after the film has been examined. “The chairperson can exercise the power after examination and before certifying the film,” he told the court.
He further stated that if additional cuts or changes were required, they had to be carried out as per law. “The petitioner cannot come to court and say that since you said you’ll grant certificate you cannot review again,” he said, adding that preventing such review would amount to prohibiting the CBFC from exercising its statutory powers.
Producers challenge review process
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for Jana Nayagan producers, countered these arguments. He said that a member of the examining committee could only make recommendations and could not become a complainant. “The member has now become the complainant. I don’t know how it happens. It is not part of the e-cinepraman also,” he submitted.
Parasaran argued that once a majority decision had been taken by the committee, the opinion of one member could not invalidate it. “Even if one of the member has objections it is still 4:1. It’s a majority decision. How can that be a reason for sending it for review,” he asked. He also said that the entire exercise was carried out without proper communication to the producers through the official portal.
Jana Nayagan: Order reserved, verdict likely on January 9
After hearing submissions from both sides, the court reserved its order in the matter. Justice Asha indicated that the orders are most likely to be pronounced on the morning of January 9. Before reserving orders, the court remarked to the CBFC, “I’ll just say that these kind of complaints are not healthy.”
As of now, Jana Nayagan, starring Thalapathy Vijay, remains without a censor certificate, with its release hinging on the court’s decision.
