HC Reserves Order On Censor Board Appeal Against ‘Jana Nayagan’

The division comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan completed the hearing of arguments of both sides following a direction by the Supreme Court on January 15.

Senior advocate Sathish Parasaran who appeared for KVN Productions which produced the film, said the CBFC regional office had communicated the decision to grant UA certificate to the film after an unanimous recommendation by the examining committee. He argued that the same film could not be referred for review to the Revising Committee. Even if one of the members after the unanimous recommendation takes a different decision, the decision to certify the film is a majority decision, he said, adding the minority decision is governing now.

Sathish Parasaran further said the producers had already removed the scenes which were objected to by the board. “Now the board wants to re-introduce the scenes deleted, submit the movie as it was before and then delete the same scenes. It is an empty exercise”. He also said members of the examining committee could never become the complainant as per the statute, he contended.

He said the film producer had received a communication on December 22 last year from the CBFC office in Chennai that the examining committee had recommended granting UA certificate to the movie after suggesting some incisions. On December 29, the changes were made and the regional office informed them that a UA certificate would be given.

Pointing out that the film was approved in 22 countries, he said it is not a practice to wait for the certificate. The producers sent mails on December 29 and 30 but the complaint was not informed to them. Only on January 5, a communication was received by the producers that the board had decided to refer the movie to the Revising Committee.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan who represented the CBFC said under Rule 23 (14) of the Cinematograph Certification rules, the chairperson could differ from the committee’s opinion suo motu or based on information received including a complaint and send back the movie for review.

He further said the single judge did not give the CBFC adequate opportunity to present their case. Even for issuing mandamus, the board should be informed to file a counter but the single judge decided to hear the matter based on materials before it. The ASG said the petitioner did not challenge the decision to review the film, adding the decision taken by the Chennai office was only intermediary and not final. A recommendation made by the regional office is sent to the board office in Mumbai which takes a decision to certify or not, the lawyer said.

He further said it might not be practical for the board at Mumbai to sit and examine every movie. The advisory panel only assists the board and their recommendation is not binding, For ‘Jana Nayagan’ the regional office received a communication from the board to put its recommendation for UA certification on hold in light of a complaint received by the board.

This was countered by Sathish Parasaran who said the communication on December 22 was a decision on behalf of the board at Mumbai. He said the board had produced records from Mumbai itself. At this point, the judges asked “Where is the letter? The matter has travelled from the writ court to the appeal court but no one has seen this document”.

The ASG said the revising committee would decide the issue in 20 days. If there were no impediments, the body would have taken a decision on January 26, Sundaresan said. Even after a tentative communication, the decision-making process is complete only when the certificate is granted. The board could not present the defence before the single judge since sufficient time was not granted.

If not 8 weeks, a shorter period of one or two days should have been granted, he argued. The producers should not have decided the release date beforehand and a reasonable time should have been given to the board to respond on facts and law, he added. This was countered by the producers’ lawyer who said the hearing concluded in a day because there was no dispute with regard to the facts.