Madras HC sends Jana Nayagan-CBFC case back to single judge
The Madras High Court has made a significant decision in the ongoing case between the makers of Thalapathy Vijay’s upcoming film, Jana Nayagan, and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). In a recent order, the division bench of the court has set aside a single judge’s order directing the CBFC to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to the film. Instead, the matter has been sent back to the single judge for fresh consideration, allowing the makers to amend their plea and challenge the CBFC chairperson’s order.
The case began when the CBFC refused to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to Jana Nayagan, citing certain objections to the film’s content. The makers of the film, who were keen to release the movie with the desired certification, approached the Madras High Court seeking relief. The single judge who heard the case initially directed the CBFC to grant the U/A 16+ certificate, which was then challenged by the CBFC before the division bench.
The division bench, while setting aside the single judge’s order, observed that the single judge had not considered the CBFC chairperson’s order and the grounds on which the certification was refused. The bench also noted that the makers of the film had not challenged the CBFC chairperson’s order before the single judge. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the single judge for fresh consideration, with the direction to hear the case expeditiously.
This decision is significant, as it highlights the importance of following the proper procedure in challenging the decisions of the CBFC. The CBFC, as a statutory body, has the authority to certify films based on certain guidelines, and its decisions can only be challenged through the proper channels. By sending the matter back to the single judge, the division bench has ensured that the makers of Jana Nayagan will have to follow the proper procedure and challenge the CBFC chairperson’s order before seeking relief from the court.
The decision also underscores the need for the CBFC to provide clear and specific reasons for refusing certification to a film. The CBFC chairperson’s order, which was not considered by the single judge, is now likely to be scrutinized by the single judge, and the makers of the film will have to address the specific objections raised by the CBFC. This will ensure that the certification process is fair and transparent, and that the filmmakers are given a clear understanding of what changes they need to make to their film to secure the desired certification.
The case has also sparked a debate about the role of the CBFC in regulating the content of films. While the CBFC has the authority to certify films based on certain guidelines, there are concerns that the body is often overly cautious and restrictive in its approach. The CBFC’s refusal to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to Jana Nayagan, for example, has been seen by some as an example of the body’s conservative approach to film certification.
The decision of the Madras High Court, however, makes it clear that the CBFC’s decisions can be challenged and that the courts will ensure that the certification process is fair and transparent. The single judge, who will now hear the case afresh, will have to consider the CBFC chairperson’s order and the grounds on which the certification was refused, and will have to provide a clear and reasoned decision on the matter.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision to send the Jana Nayagan-CBFC case back to the single judge is a significant development in the ongoing debate about film certification in India. The decision highlights the importance of following the proper procedure in challenging the decisions of the CBFC and ensures that the certification process is fair and transparent. The case will now be heard afresh by the single judge, who will have to consider the CBFC chairperson’s order and provide a clear and reasoned decision on the matter.
About the Author
