The court emphasized that failure to challenge a decision undermines writ petition maintainability, highlighting the necessity of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

Through this instant intra-court appeal, the appellants seek to assail the correctness and validity of the order dated 9.1.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.380 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.445 of 2026, whereby the writ petition has been allowed by setting aside the decision to refer the film “Jana Nayagan” to the Revising Committee for want of jurisdiction and issuing a mandamus to the second appellant herein to issue the certification as contemplated under Rule 27 (1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules , 2024, taking note of the excisions submitted in Form IX on 24.12.2025 forthwith and in tune with Rule 37 (6) of the Rules.

2.1. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued in extenso and contended that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the appellants, much less any opportunity whatsoever afforded to file their reply/counter affidavit refuting the grounds raised in the writ petition.

He would submit that the writ petitioner/respondent herein filed the writ petition on 6.1.2026, which was taken up for hearing on that very day, and the counsel for the appellants was directed to produce the records on the next day. On the next day, i.e., 7.1.2026, the records produced before the court were perused and the case was reserved for orders. Within such a short time, it was practically impossible for the appellants to have filed their counter- affidavit to oppose the relief sought in the writ petition. No time was granted to rebut the allegations of fact contained in the writ petition and without having granted an opportunity, the learned Single Judge proceeded, based on the asseverations made in the writ petition, treating them as admitted facts of the case. Therefore, it is contended that the order is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and is only on that count the order is liable to be set aside.

2.2. The second limb of submission made by learned Additional Solicitor General of India is that, even before the writ petition was filed, on 5.1.2026, a decision was taken by the Chairperson in exercise of his powers under Rule 25 of the Rules to refer the matter to the Revising Committee constituted for the purpose. The respondent herein, however, did not choose to challenge the correctness and validity of that order, nor any writ of certiorari was sought calling into question the legality of the said decision.

He further contended that the issue as to whether the Chairperson has the power, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to refer the matter to the Revising Committee could be decided only after affording opportunity of hearing, that too, if the respondent herein had sought writ of certiorari and quashment of the decision taken by the Chairperson.

In the absence of there being any challenge to the legality and validity of the decision taken by the Chairperson, the writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus was not at all maintainable. The course open for the respondent was to seek writ of certiorari by suitably amending its writ petition or seeking liberty to file fresh writ petition to challenge the decision of the Chairperson to refer the matter for examination of the Revising Committee. The respondent having not chosen to do so, the writ petition, in its present form, was liable to be dismissed.

2.3. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has wrongly invoked the power of “moulding relief” contrary to settled principles. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated on account of procedural fairness, violation of principles of natural justice and, at the same time, results in misca