CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Tuesday reserved orders on an appeal filed by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), challenging an order of a single judge directing it to issue censor certificate to Vijay’s film ‘Jana Nayagan’.
Explaining the sequence of events to the first bench comprising Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sunderesan said after the CBFC’s examining committee watched the film, production committee was informed that 14 scenes needed to be deleted after which the film would be reviewed again. This, according to the board, was only an interim decision.
Meanwhile, based on a complaint received against the film, it was decided to refer the film to a revising committee, and the decision was communicated to the production company on January 5.
However, on January 6, the production company filed a petition seeking censor certificate. The single judge set aside the decision to send the film for re-examination without granting time to file a counter affidavit and without the production company challenging the order sending the film to the committee, the ASG said.
He also submitted that the examining committee was only to assist the board to view films and offer recommendations, but the final decision on granting a certificate rests solely with the CBFC. In Jana Nayagan’s case, the board chairperson has not yet taken a final decision regarding certification. The production house filed the petition while the decision to send the film for re-examination was still in place; otherwise, the film would have already been reviewed. As per procedure, a revising committee must be constituted within 20 days of such a decision, and the panel must watch the film within three days thereafter. If the revising committee refuses certification, the producer can then approach the High Court, the CBFC argued.
Appearing for the producer, senior counsel Satish Parasaran contended that an urgent hearing was sought before the single judge because the film was scheduled for release on the 9 January.
According to him, once the screening committee views the film, it must immediately record its opinions and give recommendations. It was not permissible for members to go home and file complaints four days later.
The rules requiring transparency in censor procedures had been violated. Once information regarding certification is conveyed, the certificate must be issued within two days, the production company argued. It was also pointed out that the appeal was filed on the very same day the single judge passed the order, without granting sufficient time. The production company added that if the release date was not clarified, the OTT platform that has bagged the rights to stream the film would initiate legal action.
During the hearing, the judges observed that completing all court procedures and obtaining an order in a single day could not be accepted. They also questioned how the producers could announce the release date before obtaining the censor certificate, considering that cinema is a commercial venture.
In response, the company submitted that the film had already received approvals in 22 countries. Also, there is no established practice of waiting for a censor certificate before announcing a release date, and cited the example of Bollywood, where release dates are often announced before certification is obtained.
After hearing arguments, the bench reserved its orders without specifying a date.
During the hearing, the judges questioned how the producers could announce the release date before obtaining the censor certificate, considering that cinema is a commercial venture