Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. Swaminathan, J.
G. Kanalarasan, S/o. J.Gurnathan Alias Maaveeran - Petitioner
Versus
The Central Board Of Film Certification and ors. - Respondents
WP No. 18307 of 2025 and WMP No. 20506 OF 2025, WMP No. 20508 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Baaskaran
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Sathyan Standing Counsel
A petitioner does not possess a statutory right to a personal hearing before the Censor Board for film certification, and grievances should be addressed through ongoing civil proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Right to fair hearing - Writ petition seeking direction for personal hearing before Censor Board for film certification rejected due to absence of statutory provision for such a right. Petitioner in ongoing civil suit should seek relief from Civil Court instead. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed O.S.No.2332 of 2023 against the Censor Board regarding a film that allegedly portrays his father negatively. The Censor Board was directed to certify the film expeditiously.
Findings of Court:
The Censor Board must consider the petitioner’s representation but is not required to provide a speaking order on the objection.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has a right to a personal hearing before the Censor Board and the appropriateness of seeking writ relief during pending civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that there is no statutory requirement for a personal hearing at the certification stage and emphasized that the remedy lies within the civil law context.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the movie and initial legal actions (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. request for hearing regarding objections (Para 4) |
| 3. lack of statutory right for personal hearing (Para 5) |
| 4. direction for consideration of petitioner's representation (Para 6) |
| 5. final order and closure of the case (Para 7) |
ORDER :
G. R. Swaminathan, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, issuance of notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.
2. The third respondent herein had proposed a movie titled "Padayaanda Maaveera". It appears to be a biopic of the petitioner's father. The petitioner had earlier filed O.S.No.2332 of 2023 to restrain the Censor Board (Central Board of Film Certification) from granting certification for the said movie. According to the petitioner, the movie presents his father in a poor light and its contents are defamatory.
3. The suit is still pending. In the meanwhile, the third respondent herein filed W.P.No.16703 of 2025 for directing the Censor Board to grant permission to release the movie. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.04.2025 with a direction to the Censor Board to consider the issue of certifying the film about the petitioner's father, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 20.05.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law.
4. It is in this factual background, the present writ petition has been filed for directing the Censor Board to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to put forth his objections.
5. The writ petitioner has not drawn my attention to any statutory provisions, which confers a right of personal hearing to an objector before the Censor Board goes into the issue of certification of the movie. Secondly, the petitioner having already filed a civil suit, ought to have obtained appropriate relief only before the Civil Court. He cannot be allowed to abandon the civil proceedings mid stream and seek a writ remedy instead.
6. When a learned Judge of this Court has imposed timeline, any direction by this Court may possibly work at cross purposes. If I direct the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner and he drags on the proceedings, it would certainly frustrate the direction given earlier. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, I direct the Censor Board to take into account the representation dated 06.05.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the Censor Board. I am not calling upon the Censor Board to pass any speaking order on the petitioner's objections. I am only directing them to consider the same while certifying the movie.
7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
