The court emphasized the necessity for proper reasoning and adherence to natural justice in film certification processes, highlighting that insufficient consideration of defamation claims violates procedural fairness.

ORDER :

Heard Mr Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr A. Narasimha Sharma, learned senior designated counsel, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, learned senior designated counsel Mr A.Venkatesh, appearing on behalf respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7.

2. In pursuance to the Division Bench Orders dated 03.01.2024 passed in W.A.No. 2 of 2024, this Court heard the matter on three occasions in three spells on 09th, 10th, and 11th of January 2024 and directed for listing of the matter on 22nd January, 2024 for orders.

3. On 9th January 2024 itself, even before this Court commenced hearing the present case on merits, referring to a Division Bench Judgement of Bombay High Court in similar circumstances, when this Court suggested for Constitution of a Three Member Committee for the purpose of watching of the movie ‘Vyuham’ and submitting a report to the Court, the said suggestion of this Court was welcome High Court in similar circumstances, when this Court suggested for Constitution of a Three Member Committee for the purpose of watching of the movie ‘Vyuham’ and submitting a report to the Court, the said suggestion of this Court was welcomed by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, it was however opposed by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. A. Venkatesh appearing on behalf of Respondents No.5 and 6 on the ground that the expert body constituted under the CINEMATOGRAPH ACT , 1952 imposed few cuts and had permitted the release of the movie “Vyuham” vide impugned proceedings dated 13.12.2023 and therefore the matter has to be heard and decided on merits, and the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Narasimha Sharma, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4, submitted that the matter should be heard on merits first and the relevant records perused which had been submitted to the Court as per the orders of this Court dated 28.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.34681 of 2023 and thereafter the Court could take a decision in the matter and the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 7th Respondent also expressed that the matter should be heard on merits first.

4. This Court in its orders dated 28.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.34681 of 2023 in detail recorded the submissions of all the learned counsel appearing in the matter and the said submissions shall be treated as part of the present order as well. In addition to the said respective submissions put-forth by all the learned counsel on record incorporated in the said order dated 28.12.2023, the written submissions filed by both the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents No.5 and 6 in the form of a Brief Note are also brought on record.

5. The main submissions put-forth on 09th, 10th and 11th of January 2024 by all the learned counsel on record are as follows:

I) The learned Senior Counsel Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao appearing on behalf of the Petitioner mainly putforth the following submissions :

A) It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner is a Political Party and registered under Section 29A of the RP Act, 1951. The main purpose of its existence is to contest and win the elec