The Madras High Court set aside an order passed by a single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification to grant a U/A certificate to the film Jana Nayagan and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Division Bench held that the earlier direction had been issued without affording the Central Board of Film Certification an adequate opportunity to place its case before the Court, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Bench emphasized that procedural fairness is essential, particularly in matters involving statutory authorities exercising powers under a regulatory framework, and concluded that the dispute required reconsideration after hearing both sides in full.
The controversy arose from the certification process of the film Jana Nayagan, which was submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification for approval. An examining committee initially viewed the film and recommended that it be granted a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to certain modifications. The producers of the film complied with the suggested changes and expected the certificate to be issued. However, before the certification could be formally granted, a complaint was received alleging that certain portions of the film could hurt religious sentiments and portrayed the armed forces in a negative manner. Based on this complaint, the Chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification decided to refer the film to a revising committee, resulting in further delay in the certification process.
Aggrieved by this development, the producers approached the Madras High Court by filing a writ petition. They contended that once the examining committee had recommended certification and the required changes had been carried out, there was no justification for reopening the process based on a complaint received at a later stage. They argued that the referral to a revising committee was arbitrary and beyond the authority of the Chairperson, and that the delay in certification was adversely affecting the release plans of the film.
A single judge of the High Court considered the petition and passed an order setting aside the Chairperson’s decision to refer the film to a revising committee. The single judge directed the Central Board of Film Certification to grant a U/A certificate to the film forthwith. The reasoning adopted was that once the examining committee’s recommendations had been complied with, the Board could not reopen the matter solely on the basis of a subsequent complaint, and that the producers should not be left in a state of uncertainty after fulfilling all requirements.
The Central Board of Film Certification challenged this order before a Division Bench of the High Court. In its appeal, the Board argued that it had not been given sufficient opportunity to file a counter affidavit or explain the rationale behind its decision. It contended that the Chairperson’s powers under the certification regime included the authority to refer a film to a revising committee when objections were raised, and that the single judge’s order had been passed without a complete hearing on these issues. The Board maintained that the absence of an opportunity to respond had caused serious prejudice to its statutory role and responsibilities.
The Division Bench examined the procedural history of the case and noted that the Central Board of Film Certification had not been granted adequate time to place its version on record before the single judge passed a final direction. The Bench observed that judicial review of administrative action must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the right of the affected authority to be heard. It held that the merits of the dispute, including whether the referral to a revising committee was justified and whether the Chairperson acted within her powers, could not be properly assessed without considering the Board’s explanation.
On this basis, the Division Bench set aside the single judge’s order directing the issuance of a U/A certificate. The Bench remanded the matter to the single judge for fresh consideration, directing that the Central Board of Film Certification be given an opportunity to file its counter affidavit and present its case. The producers were also granted liberty to amend their writ petition or modify the relief sought, if necessary, so that all relevant issues could be properly framed and adjudicated.
The Division Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and that all issues were left open to be decided afresh by the single judge. The emphasis of the Bench was on ensuring that the adjudication process complied with procedural fairness and that the statutory authority was not condemned without being heard. The remand effectively nullified the earlier direction for immediate certification and restored the dispute to the stage where it could be examined comprehensively.
The Court highlighted that while judicial intervention is permissible when administrative actions are alleged to be unlawful or arbitrary, such intervention must follow a fair and balanced process. Orders that have the effect of directing statutory authorities to act in a particular manner should ordinarily be passed only after hearing all stakeholders and examining the legal framework governing the authority’s powers. In the context of film certification, where regulatory discretion, public interest considerations, and creative freedom intersect, the need for careful and procedurally sound adjudication was underscored.
As a result of the remand, the certification status of Jana Nayagan remains unresolved, and the matter will now be reconsidered by the single judge after a full hearing. The Division Bench’s order ensures that both the producers’ grievances regarding delay and the Central Board of Film Certification’s justification for referring the film to a revising committee will be examined in accordance with law. The decision reflects the High Court’s insistence on adherence to natural justice and reinforces the principle that substantive judicial directions must rest on a foundation of fair procedure.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.