Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
ADDL. R5: Catholic Congress – Appellant
Versus
Juby Thomas S/o V.M. Thomas – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. intra-court appeals against prior judgment (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the film's certification (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. parties' arguments concerning film content (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. guiding principles for film certification (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. judging films by social impact, not hypersensitivity (Para 12) |
| 6. court's finding on artistic freedom (Para 13) |
| 7. clarification on appeal process under cinematograph act (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2025 in W.P.(C)No.37251 of 2025, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as in their status in Writ Appeal No.2926 of 2025 for convenience.
The 1st respondent is the producer and the 2nd respondent is the Director of the movie titled “HAAL”. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the banner “JVJ Productions” produced the afore movie, starring Shane Nigam. Initially, it was decided to release the film for Onam, but due to unforeseen reasons, it got delayed. The movie was forwarded and Ext.P3 application was submitted before the 2nd appellant for censor certificate. The movie was played before the Censor Bo
Artistic freedom of expression under the Cinematograph Act must be upheld, and censorship must consider the overall social message of a film without imposing undue restrictions.
The Court held that the Revising Committee is required to assign reasons while granting 'U' certificate to a film with excisions and that no reasons were assigned by the Revising Committee in this ca....
The authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.
Point of Law : Rule 24(12) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 would make it abundantly clear that if the Chairman of the Board disagrees with the recommendations of a Revising Committee....
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in film certification matters and highlighted the availability of remedies under the C....
The judgment emphasizes the creative freedom of filmmakers in addressing social issues and the responsibility to depict the overall message of the film in determining its permissibility. It also high....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
