Court emphasizes need for procedural fairness and challenges to Chairperson's decisions in CBFC film certification disputes.
In a significant ruling, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the order of a Single Judge that had previously directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a certification for the film "Jana Nayagan". The Single Judge had intervened in the CBFC's decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee, citing jurisdictional errors and procedural unfairness.
The appeal, filed by the CBFC, argued that the Single Judge's decision was made without affording them an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit or be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The CBFC maintained that the film was referred to the Revising Committee due to complaints about its content potentially disturbing religious harmony, a decision made under Rule 25 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, highlighted that the respondent, KVN Productions LLP, had not challenged the Chairperson's decision to refer the film to the Revising Committee. The court emphasized that without challenging this adverse decision, the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for certification was not maintainable.
The court underscored the necessity for procedural fairness, noting that the writ petition was decided without giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. The court also criticized the Single Judge's approach in moulding relief without addressing the maintainability of the petition first.
The Division Bench has allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and restored the writ petition to its original state. It has provided the respondent the opportunity to amend the writ petition to challenge the Chairperson's decision appropriately. The court has directed that the matter should be reconsidered, allowing both parties to present their cases comprehensively.
This judgment reinforces the importance of challenging adverse decisions in legal disputes and upholds the procedural rights of parties involved in the film certification process.
Bottom Line:
Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 - Decision of Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), to refer the film to the Revising Committee without granting reasonable opportunity of filing reply to the appellants violates principles of natural justice - Writ petition seeking mandamus not maintainable without challenging the decision of the Chairperson.
Statutory provision(s): Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, Rules 24, 25, 27, 33, 37(6), Rule 25(1), Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021.
