Appeals Against CBFC Certification Under S.5C Cinematograph Act Are Maintainable Before High Court Post-Tribunal Reforms Act: Madras High Court - 2025-10-02

Madras High Court Affirms Jurisdiction to Hear Appeals Against CBFC Certification Post Abolition of Film Tribunal

In a significant procedural ruling, the Madras High Court has held that a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is maintainable before it. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi clarified that following the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), the High Court is the appropriate forum for such appeals.

Case Background

The case arose after Sun TV Network Limited, the appellant, challenged the CBFC's decision to grant an "A" (Adults Only) certificate to the movie "Coolie". Seeking a "U/A" (Unrestricted Public Exhibition with Parental Guidance) certificate instead, Sun TV filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the High Court.

However, the High Court Registry raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 104 and Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the CBFC.

Arguments from Both Sides

Appellant's Stance: Mr. J. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Sun TV Network, argued that the appeal was perfectly maintainable. He pointed to the amendments brought about by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. He submitted that Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, originally provided for an appeal to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. With the abolition of the Tribunal, the amending act substituted the word "Tribunal" with "High Court". Consequently, the High Court now steps into the shoes of the erstwhile Tribunal, making it the correct appellate authority.

Respondent's Objection: Mr. A. Kumaraguru, Senior Panel Counsel for the CBFC, raised an initial objection, contending that an appeal under Section 5C of the Act would not lie before the High Court.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Interpretation

Justice T.V. Thamilselvi examined the relevant legal provisions to resolve the jurisdictional question. The Court noted that Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, explicitly grants an aggrieved person the right to appeal an order of the CBFC, including the grant of an "A" certificate, within thirty days.

The judgment highlighted the pivotal change introduced by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court reproduced the relevant amendment, which states: "in section 5C, (i) for the word ''Tribunal'', at both the places where it occurs, the words ''High Court'' shall be substituted" .

Based on this clear legislative substitution, the Court concluded:

"As per the new amendment to the Act, now the word 'Tribunal' is substituted with the words 'High Court'. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would lie before this Court."

Final Decision and Its Implications

The Court ruled that the appeal was maintainable and directed the Registry to number the appeal and list it for admission. The final order stated:

"Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 104 and Order 43 of CPC is maintainable. The Registry is directed to number the appeal and list this matter for admission."

This judgment provides crucial clarity on the procedural pathway for filmmakers and production houses aggrieved by CBFC decisions. It formally establishes the High Court as the first appellate authority in matters of film certification, ensuring that the statutory right to appeal is not lost due to the abolition of the specialized tribunal. The matter is now set to be heard on its merits on August 20, 2025.