Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T.ASHA
KVN Productions LLP, Represented by is Authorized Signatory, Mr. Venkata Narayana Konanki – Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Film Certification, Films Division Complex – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of film certification process (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner and respondent's arguments on powers and procedures (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's examination of procedural lapses and complaints (Para 12 , 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. court's analysis on jurisdiction of the chairperson (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. final order to grant certification based on compliance (Para 28) |
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 2nd 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
The authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee exists only before a certification decision is made; post-approval actions are without jurisdiction.
The court emphasized that failure to challenge a decision undermines writ petition maintainability, highlighting the necessity of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.
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....
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 Caste Scrutiny Committee lacks the authority to review a validated caste certificate; it can only cancel it if fraud is proven, and must afford a fair hearing as dictated by principles of natural....
Artistic expression in film must be balanced with state interests in censorship, ensuring compliance with statutory guidelines without undermining fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)....
Licensing authorities must deny licensure to unsanctioned occupants; ownership or leasehold rights are essential for the issuance of cinematograph licences to ensure public safety.
Point of Law : Once film is granted certificate by competent statutory authority, i.e. Board, producer or distributor of the film has every right to exhibit film in a hall unless, of course, said cer....
The importance of exhausting statutory remedies and the powers of the Central Government under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to suspend the exhibition of any film.
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and the principle that a power given to do a certain thing in a certain way must be done in that way or not at all.
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
