The Madras High Court allowed the producer of the film Jana Nayagan to withdraw a writ petition that had challenged the process adopted by the Central Board of Film Certification in relation to the film’s certification. The Court recorded the request for withdrawal after the production company communicated its decision to discontinue the judicial proceedings and pursue remedies available within the statutory framework of the certification authority. With the Court granting permission, the writ petition stood dismissed as withdrawn, bringing the litigation on the issue to an end.
The petition had been filed by the film’s producer questioning the manner in which the certification process was handled by the certification authority. The grievance centered on delays in granting certification and the decision of the Board to refer the film to a revising committee even after certain assurances were allegedly given regarding the nature of certification to be granted. The producer contended that the referral caused uncertainty and adversely affected the film’s release plans, prompting the approach to the High Court for relief.
The controversy arose after the examining committee of the certification authority reviewed the film and certain developments followed within the Board. Despite the producers complying with suggested changes, the certification was not issued as anticipated. Subsequently, based on objections raised by a member of the examining committee relating to the film’s content, including concerns about portrayal and sensitivities, the matter was escalated for further review by a revising committee. This step was challenged as being unjustified and beyond the authority’s jurisdiction at that stage.
Initially, a single judge of the High Court had passed an order directing the certification authority to grant certification to the film, holding that the decision to send it for further review after indicating clearance was not sustainable. This order was challenged before a Division Bench, which stayed and later set aside the direction on the ground that the certification authority had not been given sufficient opportunity to place its stand on record. The Division Bench remanded the matter for reconsideration and indicated that the producers could appropriately amend their challenge to specifically address the referral to the revising committee.
Following the remand and the passage of time, the producers reconsidered their course of action. They informed the Court that they no longer wished to pursue the writ petition and intended to engage with the certification process through the revising committee and other mechanisms provided under the statutory scheme. The communication conveyed that the producers preferred to resolve the issue administratively rather than continue with prolonged litigation.
Accepting this request, the High Court permitted the withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court did not go into the merits of the dispute at this stage, as the matter was not pressed for adjudication. With the withdrawal allowed, the judicial proceedings concerning the film’s certification formally concluded, leaving the certification authority to proceed in accordance with law.
The order effectively restored the matter to the certification authority’s domain, allowing the statutory process to run its course without further judicial intervention.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.