High Court · 2025

WP No. 18036 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHWP No. 18036 of 2025Mr.Vetri MaaranPetitioner(s)Vs1.The ChairmanCentral Board of Film Certification, Films Division Complex, Phase-I, Building, 9th Floor, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai 400026.2.The Regional OfficerCentral Board of Film Certification, Shastri Bhavan, No.35, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.Respondent(s)PRAYERdirecting the respondent No.2 herein to consider and pass orders based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2025 to issue a speaking order after re-Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025examining the movie “Manushi” with an expert in the field and passFor Petitioner(s):Mr.B.M.SubashFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.Kumaraguru Standing Counsel ORDERThis writ petition was filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.03.2025 and to pass a speaking order after re-examining the movie 'Manushi'.2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 04.06.2025, this Court passed the following orders:“This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 29.03.2025 and to issue a speaking order after re-examining the movie 'Manushi' with an expert in the field.2. Heard Mr.B.M.Subash, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.Kumaraguru, learned counsel for respondents. Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 20253. The certificate sought for by the petitioner has been refused by assigning the following reasons: “The film is evaluated in its overall aspects. As a whole the portrayal of the movie is against the integrity of the State, contemptuous of certain Community group and defaming policies of the Government. Further the movie also stereotypes people from certain places, displays North South divide and many scenes are against the interest of the Country. Hence the Committee unanimously recommended "Refusal" of Certificate.” 4. Initially, such refusal was made by the Examining Committee and thereafter, it was confirmed by the Revising Committee. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that if the petitioner makes necessary modification/editing by curing all those defects that were pointed out in the refusal order passed by the Screening Committee and the film is re-submitted, the same will be considered by the respondents. For this purpose, learned counsel relied upon the communication dated 21.04.2025 made to the petitioner by the second respondent. 6. The reasons for refusal to grant certificate for the film is broadly under five heads and they are (1)the movie is against the integrity of the State;Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025(2)the movie is contemptuous of certain community group; (3)the movie defames policies of the Government; (4)the movie also stereotypes people from certain places, which displays North South divide and; (5)many scenes are against the interest of the country. 7. The Revising Committee would have come to such a conclusion by taking note of certain scenes and considering certain dialogues and the manner in which a particular issue is projected in the movie. Therefore, these conclusions arrived at by the Revising Committee is not subjective and such conclusions are based on facts, which are objective and which are discernible from various scenes in the movie. Therefore, if at all the petitioner has to edit scenes, dialogues etc., he must be informed about the objectionable portions in the film and only then, the petitioner can take a decision to edit those objectionable portions. If that is not spelt out in the refusal order passed by the Revising Committee, the movie maker will be groping in darkness without knowing as to which scenes and dialogues will have to be edited. 8. In view of the above, the second respondent must intimate the petitioner the objectionable portions/dialogues in the movie and the scenes in which it Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025is portrayed. In the alternative, the petitioner can be permitted to view the movie along with the officials and such objectionable portions/scenes can be pointed out then and there to enable the petitioner to edit the same. Only if this process is followed, it will give a reasonable opportunity for the movie maker to make necessary editing in the movie and remove the objectionable portions. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents shall take instructions in this regard and report before this Court. Post this writ petition under the caption 'for orders' on 11.06.2025.” 3. The writ petition was thereafter listed for hearing on 11.06.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:“Pursuant to the earlier orders passed by this Court on 04.06.2025, the matter has been listed for hearing today. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:- “12. I submit that later, the applicant vide his representation dated 29.03.2025, after a lapse of five Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025months, had expressed his willingness to edit the objectionable scenes and dialogues and requested copies of Form VIII filed by the individual members. Hence, this office vide letter dated 21.04.2025 had informed the applicant that the Form VIII requested by him is confidential as per Rule 23(5) of Cinematograh (Certification) Rules, 2024 and could not be shared. The applicant was informed that the film shall be edited in such a way that it eliminates the reasons for refusal, decision of the revising committee and submit the revised version. 13. I submit that the list of modifications/excisions is not filed and only reasons for “Refusal” is given in respect of the films which are “Refused” Certification. 14. I submit that as per Rule 23(8) & 25(7) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the applicant shall not be allowed to be present inside the preview theatre while the officials of CBFC are examining the film. However, the applicant will be heard after examination of the film before the Committee finalises its decision. 15. I submit that the Committees of the Board (both Examining Committee and the Revising Committee) had made the recommendations for this film after detailed discussion and as per the guidelines laid down under the Cinematograph Act and Rules. 16. I submit that as per the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court directing the board to intimate the petitioner about the objectionable portions/dialogues in the film and the scenes in which it is portrayed, the Board has decided to re-examine the film by the Revising Committee on 11.06.2025 and the petitioner had also Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025been informed of the same.” 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Revising Committee is going to view the film today and the petitioner will be informed about the decision to be taken by the Revising Committee. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will not be allowed to be present inside the preview theatre and to substantiate the same, the learned counsel relied upon Rule 23(8) of the Rules. If the petitioner is willing to edit/modify/remove any of the objectionable portions pointed out by the Revising Committee in the movie, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to do so. If any objection is raised, the objectionable portions will be pointed out in Form VIII and it will be informed to the petitioner within three days. 4. In the light of the above developments, this Court wants to wait for the decision to be taken by the Revising Committee and also the response of the petitioner. Post this writ petition under the same caption on 17.06.2025.” 4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025Central Board of Film Certification had already provided the petitioner with all the details regarding the objectionable portions/dialogues/scenes in the movie and the relevant materials were also placed before this Court. 5. The petitioner was also informed that if he is willing to edit the objectionable content and resubmit the edited version of the film, it could be considered. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has objections with respect to the objectionable portions of the film that was pointed out by the Board.6. In the considered view of this Court, the legality or otherwise of the objections raised by the Revising Committee, as communicated to the petitioner by the Central Board of Film Certification, cannot be examined in this writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 20257. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.17-06-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoJeniTo1.The ChairmanCentral Board Of Film Certification,Films Division Complex,Phase -I,Building, 9th Floor,Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg,Mumbai 4000262.The Regional OfficerCentral Board Of Film Certification, Shastri Bhavan, No.35, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18036 of 2025N.ANAND VENKATESH J.JeniWP No. 18036 of 2025 17-06-2025Page No.10 of 10