The authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.

ORDER :

P.T.ASHA, J.

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant Censor Certificate in the name of the petitioner being the producer of the film “Jana Nayagan” under UA 16+ category, as per the 2^nd respondent communication dated 24.12.2025 within a period of 24 hours.”

2. On hearing the arguments on either side, the issue that engages the attention of this Court is as follows :

“Whether the competent authority, having already taken a decision of accepting the recommendation of the Examining Committee, has the right to revise its earlier decision?”

3. In order to appreciate the above issue, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts which has culminated in the filing of the above writ petition.

Since the entire arguments are based on the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, oral submissions has been made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG in short) who has also made elaborate submissions on the basis of the contents of the affidavit as well as the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and the provisions contained in the Rules.

Facts of the case:

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematographic films, in the course of its business, has also produced the film “Jana Nayagan” which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

5. The lead cast actor for the above film are actors, Vijay, Prakash Raj and other leading artists from the South Indian Film Industry. The pre-production work for the above film started in May 2024 and the pooja ceremony for the said film was held on 04.10.2024. Thereafter on 05.10.2024, the principal shooting had commenced. On 15.12.2025, the post production work was completed and on 27.12.2025, the audio launch had taken place.

6. In the interregnum, on 18.12.2025, the petitioner had filed necessary application for censor certification. The same was acknowledged by the 2^nd respondent's office on 19.12.2025 bearing No.01031912202500014. The said application had been submitted after complying with all the statutory requirements including payment of fees and submission of documents as contemplated under Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024 , hereinafter referred to as “The Rules”. The petitioner thereafter received a communication from the 2^nd respondent dated 22.12.2025 in which it was stated that after considering the written and oral submissions of the petitioner's authorized representative during the personal hearing and viewing of the film, the Examining Committee had recommended the grant of certification of the film under the category UA 16+ subject to the compliance of certain excisions and/or modifications.

7. On the basis of these communications, the petitioner submits that they had carried out all the excisions (as the Examining Committee had only recommended excisions) as directed by the 2^nd respondent and resubmitted the revised version on 24.12.2025. The suggested cuts were expressly marked for re-submission. The 2^nd respondent had, by communication dated 29.12.2025, informed the petitioner that the modifications had been verified and the petitioner would be granted 'UA 16+' certification. In the light of the above communication, the petitioner attempted to proceed with the final stage of certification process. At this juncture, they had encountered a technical limitation in the CBFC on-line portal as there was no provision to upload the audio descrip