Judicial Review of CBFC Cuts Governed by Proportionality Test Under Art 19(1)(a), Not Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Madras High Court - 2025-09-01

Madras High Court Upholds Artistic Freedom, Partially Quashes CBFC Cuts on Vetri Maaran's Film 'Manushi'

CHENNAI – In a significant ruling on the scope of film censorship and artistic freedom, the Madras High Court, led by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, has partially set aside the recommendations of the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) Revising Committee that mandated 37 cuts and modifications in director Vetri Maaran's upcoming film, "Manushi."

The Court, after a special viewing of the film, applied the proportionality test to balance the filmmaker's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution against the state's power to impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

---

Background of the Case

The case originated after the CBFC's Examining Committee and subsequently the Revising Committee initially refused to certify "Manushi," citing broad reasons such as the film being "against the integrity of the State," "contemptuous of certain Community group," and "defaming policies of the Government."

Filmmaker Vetri Maaran first approached the court seeking a detailed list of the objectionable content, arguing that the vague refusal order left him "groping in darkness." Following the court's direction, the Revising Committee re-examined the film and provided a list of 37 required excisions and modifications as a condition for certification. Maaran then challenged these specific cuts in the present writ petition, arguing they were an unreasonable curb on his artistic freedom.

---

Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

The CBFC argued that the court should not entertain the writ petition as an appeal against its decision lies before the High Court under Section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

However, Justice Venkatesh clarified that since the case involved a direct infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a), a writ petition was maintainable. He firmly established that the standard for judicial review in such cases is the "proportionality test," which involves a more intensive scrutiny than the traditional "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test applied in other administrative law matters.

"The applicable test in this case is one of proportionality and not of Wednesbury’s unreasonableness... the proportionality test is to be applied by the Court as a primary reviewing authority in cases where there is a violation of Articles 19 and 21."

The Court reviewed the history of film censorship in India, citing landmark Supreme Court judgments like K.A Abbas v. Union of India and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram , which established that freedom of expression is the rule and can only be suppressed if there is a danger akin to a "spark in a powder keg."

---

Court's Analysis of the Film and Cuts

After viewing the film, Justice Venkatesh described "Manushi" as a "poignant cinematic reflection on how ordinary lives can be torn apart when systemic prejudices and state machinery collide." The film tells the story of a father and daughter who are wrongly ensnared in a police dragnet after renting their property to women branded as extremists.

The Court conducted a detailed, scene-by-scene analysis of the 37 objections raised by the CBFC, balancing artistic necessity against the grounds for restriction outlined in the Cinematograph Act and its guidelines.

Key Findings on the Cuts:

* Caste and Social Commentary: The Court overruled several cuts related to dialogues on caste discrimination and reservation, holding them to be integral to the film's theme. It observed that since the movie portrays societal discrimination, these dialogues were "in sync with the object of the movie."

* Political Ideology: The Court directed that references to suspects as "Communist" be replaced with terms like "extremist" or "naxalite," reasoning that communism is a recognized political ideology in India and should not be equated with extremism.

* Incitement to Violence: The Court upheld the CBFC’s direction to remove a climactic dialogue that called for turning weapons against the state, finding it fell within the reasonable restrictions of endangering public order.

* Denigration of Women: The Court agreed with the CBFC on modifying or removing certain scenes depicting custodial torture of women, finding them unnecessarily explicit and portraying women police officers in a poor light.

---

The Final Verdict

Justice Venkatesh, while re-emphasizing the need for censors to be broadminded, laid down a clear marker for when their scissors can be used. Quoting the G.D. Khosla Committee report, he noted that a film must be judged as a whole and sequences can be deleted only if they are irrelevant to the story, introduced solely for prurience, or clearly transgress the law.

“Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error," the judge quoted Justice Robert H. Jackson of the US Supreme Court.

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to carry out the specific modifications and excisions upheld in the judgment within two weeks. Upon resubmission, the CBFC has been directed to issue an appropriate certificate for the film "Manushi" within two weeks thereafter.