The Kerala High Court addressed procedural issues arising from appeals related to the Malayalam film Haal and clarified the statutory right of appeal under the Cinematograph Act. The Division Bench, presided over by Justice Arvind Sushrut Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, considered appeals challenging a single judge’s order in a matter involving the certification of Haal by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Union government and the Catholic Congress had filed writ appeals against the single judge’s decision which quashed the A-certificate and certain cuts imposed by the CBFC and directed reconsideration of the film’s certification. The appellants had also contended that the petition should not have been entertained as a writ petition under the constitutional provision because a statutory mechanism for appeal existed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act.
During the proceedings, the court turned its attention to the technical issue surrounding the acceptance of appeals under Section 5C. The filmmakers had initially filed an appeal under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act against the CBFC’s decision. However, the registry of the High Court had not accepted this appeal due to the absence of a specific nomenclature for filing such appeals, which created an administrative obstacle. This resulted in the matter being pursued via a writ petition instead of as a statutory appeal. The Union government argued that since the statute provided a specific appeal route, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition.
The Division Bench examined the statutory framework in the Cinematograph Act and highlighted that Section 5C expressly provides an appeal to the High Court from orders passed by the Censor Board at the instance of an aggrieved person. The bench observed that when a statutory right of appeal exists, it cannot be thwarted or curtailed on technical grounds such as the absence of a designated title or category for filing the appeal in the court’s registry. The court emphasised that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of the enforcement of a statutory right granted by legislation. It noted that the procedural shortcoming in the registry’s acceptance of appeals under the Act had inadvertently forced litigants to approach the court through writ petitions, which was not the intended mode of legal remedy under the Cinematograph Act.
In view of these considerations, the High Court directed its registry to accept and entertain appeals filed under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act as miscellaneous first appeals with the designation “MFA (Cinematograph Act)” until such time as a specific nomenclature for such appeals is formally adopted through appropriate notifications or modifications. The bench made it clear that this interim nomenclature should be utilised to ensure that appellants are not deprived of their statutory right of appeal due to procedural lacunae. The court expressed confidence that the registry would implement these directions without undue delay.
The High Court’s directive was issued in the context of disposing of the writ appeals related to Haal, and the bench clarified that the specific case before it would not be treated as a precedent for other matters. However, the order established a clear procedural pathway for future appeals under the Cinematograph Act, ensuring that aggrieved parties can pursue their statutory rights without facing administrative impediments.
The appeals in question were registered as WA 2803 of 2025 and WA 2926 of 2025 and were titled Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas and Others and Union of India and Others v. Juby Thomas and Others respectively. The appellants in one of the matters included representatives of the Catholic Congress and an office bearer of a cultural organisation, while the respondents included the film’s producers and others. Counsel for the appellants included legal representatives appearing on behalf of the Catholic Congress and associated parties, and counsel for the respondents comprised advocates representing the interests of the filmmakers.
Through its judgment, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory rights of appeal should be upheld and not restricted on mere procedural technicalities. The court’s directions sought to align administrative practices within the registry with the legislative intent of the Cinematograph Act, ensuring that appeals under Section 5C are processed appropriately and that litigants are able to invoke their rights as provided by law.
The ruling also implicitly recognised the broader context of the underlying disputes involving Haal, highlighting ongoing tensions between filmmakers, certification authorities, and public interest groups regarding film content and censorship practices. By resolving the procedural issue related to the mode of appeal, the High Court addressed a fundamental aspect of access to justice in cases arising under the Cinematograph Act, ensuring that future certification challenges can be heard within the proper statutory framework.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.