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 development, 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 division bench has sent the matter 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, unhappy with the CBFC’s decision, approached the Madras High Court seeking relief. The single judge who heard the case initially directed the CBFC to grant the certificate, but this order has now been set aside by the division bench.
The division bench’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge is significant, as it allows the makers of Jana Nayagan to amend their plea and challenge the CBFC chairperson’s order. This means that the makers will have another opportunity to present their case and argue why they believe the film deserves a U/A 16+ certificate.
The CBFC’s decision to refuse the certificate was likely based on the film’s content, which may have been deemed unsuitable for viewers under the age of 16. The board’s guidelines dictate that films with certain types of content, such as violence, strong language, or mature themes, must be given a more restrictive certificate, such as an A certificate. In this case, the CBFC may have felt that Jana Nayagan’s content was not suitable for a U/A 16+ certificate, leading to the refusal of the certificate.
The makers of Jana Nayagan, on the other hand, likely argued that the film’s content is suitable for a U/A 16+ certificate and that the CBFC’s decision was unfair. They may have presented evidence, such as expert opinions or research, to support their claim that the film is suitable for viewers over the age of 16.
The Madras High Court’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge is a positive development for the makers of Jana Nayagan. It allows them to amend their plea and present new evidence, which could potentially lead to a more favorable outcome. However, it also means that the case will continue to be delayed, which could impact the film’s release date.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between film makers and the CBFC, which has been a point of contention in the Indian film industry for many years. The CBFC’s guidelines and decisions are often seen as restrictive and arbitrary, leading to frustration among film makers who feel that their creative freedom is being curtailed.
In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases involving the CBFC and film makers, including the controversy surrounding the film “Udta Punjab” in 2016. In that case, the CBFC demanded extensive cuts to the film, which the makers refused to make. The matter eventually went to court, where the CBFC’s decision was overturned.
The case of Jana Nayagan is just the latest example of the ongoing struggle between film makers and the CBFC. While the court’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge is a positive development for the makers, it also highlights the need for greater clarity and consistency in the CBFC’s guidelines and decision-making process.
As the case continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how the single judge rules on the matter and whether the makers of Jana Nayagan are ultimately successful in their bid to secure a U/A 16+ certificate for the film. One thing is certain, however: the case will have significant implications for the Indian film industry and the ongoing debate about creative freedom and censorship.
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 saga. The case highlights the tension between film makers and the CBFC, and the need for greater clarity and consistency in the board’s guidelines and decision-making process. As the case continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how it ultimately plays out and what implications it will have for the Indian film industry.
About the Author
