Madras High Court Rules Against CBFC Chairperson's Authority in Film Certification Dispute Court Orders Immediate Issuance of Certification for "Jana Nayagan" After Jurisdictional Overreach by CBFC Chairperson
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has determined that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairperson overstepped their jurisdiction by referring the film "Jana Nayagan" to a Revising Committee after the Board had already recommended certification with specific excisions. The judgment was delivered by Justice P.T. Asha, who issued a writ of mandamus directing the CBFC to grant the certification as initially recommended.
The dispute arose after M/s. KVN Productions LLP, the petitioner and producer of "Jana Nayagan," complied with recommended excisions from the Examining Committee, anticipating the issuance of a UA 16+ certificate. However, the CBFC Chairperson intervened, citing a complaint regarding the film’s content, and referred it to a Revising Committee, delaying the certification process.
Justice Asha, upon reviewing the procedures established under the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024, held that the Chairperson's authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee must be exercised before a decision under Rule 24 is made and communicated under Rule 26. The court noted that the Board had already accepted the Examining Committee's unanimous recommendation, communicated to the petitioner on December 22, 2025, thus precluding any further revisions by the Chairperson.
Highlighting the procedural misstep, the court scrutinized the complaint that prompted the Chairperson's action and found it to be an afterthought, lacking credible grounds for altering the Board's initial decision. The court emphasized that the complaint did not justify a reversal of the Board's communication and that the Chairperson's subsequent action was without jurisdiction.
Justice Asha referenced past Supreme Court judgments to underscore the High Court's authority to issue writs ensuring justice and overcoming technical hurdles. Consequently, the court set aside the Chairperson's decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee and mandated the CBFC to proceed with issuing the certification based on the excisions already submitted.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding procedural integrity and the limitations of administrative powers within statutory frameworks. The decision is expected to have implications for future interactions between filmmakers and the CBFC, reinforcing the boundaries of jurisdictional authority in film certification processes.
Bottom Line:
The decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairperson to refer a film to a Revising Committee after the Board had already recommended the grant of certification with excisions is held without jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Cinematograph Act, 1952 Sections 4, 5A, 5B, 6; Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024 Rules 23, 24, 25, 27, 37; Article 226 of Constitution of India.
