On Tuesday, the Madras High Court continued to hear KVN Productions' appeal against Jana Nayagan's lack of a censorship certificate. The case concerns the Central Board of Film Certification's delay in certifying the movie before its January 9 Pongal release. Both the CBFC and the film's producers made thorough submissions to the court.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, who appeared on behalf of the CBFC, informed the court that all relevant documents, including a copy of an email complaint against the movie, had been presented to the bench. He argued that the CBFC Chairperson's authority was used to start the review process in response to this complaint.

Details of Jana Nayagan's court case

Justice PT Asha questioned the reasons the movie was sent for review during the hearing. "Now, the only basis on which you wish to review the film is based on the complaint, which on its face is not maintainable because all objections raised in the complaint have already been dealt with," the court noted. According to a Live Lar report, the court further noted that the examining committee's objections had already been addressed, with some words muted and incisions made.

"You're a responsible body," the court added. Additionally, when the body claims that the complaint is the basis for the entire revision process, the complaint simply states that the objections have not been taken into account. Justice Asha made the point that the producers ought to have been notified as soon as the Chairperson made the decision to send the movie for review, and they shouldn't have been permitted to make changes without prior notice.

CBFC protects the chairperson's authority

According to ASG Sundaresan, the CBFC Chairperson is not constrained by the examining committee's ruling. He argued that even after the film has been reviewed, the Chairperson may, in accordance with Rule 23(14), order a review either suo motu or based on information received. He informed the court, "The chairperson can exercise the power after examination and before certifying the film."

He added that any further reductions or adjustments had to be made in accordance with the law. "The petitioner cannot come to court and say that since you said you'll grant certificate you cannot review again," he stated, noting that doing so would be equivalent to forbidding the CBFC from using its statutory authority.

Producers contest the review procedure

On behalf of the Jana Nayagan producers, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran refuted these claims. A member of the examining committee, he said, could only offer suggestions and could not file a complaint. The complainant is now the member. I have no idea how it occurs. It's not included in the e-cinepraman either," he said.

Parasaran contended that a committee's majority decision could not be overturned by a single member's viewpoint. It is still 4:1 even if one member objects. The decision is made by a majority. He questioned, "How can that be a justification for sending it for review?" Additionally, he claimed that the producers were not properly informed through the official portal throughout the entire exercise.

Jana Nayagan: Judgment is anticipated on January 9; order reserved

The court postponed making a decision in the case after hearing arguments from both parties. According to Justice Asha, the orders will probably be issued early on January 9. "I'll just say that these kind of complaints are not healthy," the court said to the CBFC prior to reserving orders.

The release of Jana Nayagan, starring Thalapathy Vijay, is currently pending a court ruling and does not yet have a censor certificate.

Read this as well: