Madras HC Dismisses Plea for Pre-emptive Ban on Film 'Bad Girl', Rules Writ of Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Prematurely - 2025-02-24

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea to Pre-emptively Ban Film 'Bad Girl'

Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a pre-emptive directive to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to refuse certification for an upcoming movie titled “Bad Girl.” Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that the court could not issue such a direction for a film that has not yet been submitted to the censor board for review, deeming the plea premature.

---

Case Overview

The petitioner, Rashtriya Sanadhana Seva Sangam, represented by its Founder President S. Ramanath, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought a Writ of Mandamus—a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do.

The Sangam’s plea was based on a representation dated January 31, 2025, urging the Regional Officer of the CBFC in Chennai to outright refuse certification for the movie “Bad Girl.”

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner organization requested the court to compel the CBFC to act on its representation and pre-emptively block the film's release by denying it a censor certificate.

• Respondent's Rebuttal: Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing the CBFC, presented a straightforward and decisive counter-argument. He informed the court that the CBFC had not received any application for censorship, nor the movie itself, for review. He argued that the petitioner's prayer was therefore untenable and could not be considered at the present time. He further assured the court that the CBFC is a fully equipped statutory body that would perform its duties and consider any application in accordance with the law, as and when it is submitted.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy accepted the submission of the Deputy Solicitor General. The court noted that since the movie was not before the CBFC, the petitioner's request was based on a future, hypothetical event.

In its order, the court stated:

"When the matter came up for hearing, M.Rajesh Vivekananthan, the Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India would submit that, as on date, they have not received any such movie or application for censorship. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner as on today cannot be countenanced."

The judgment underscores a crucial legal principle: judicial intervention through a Writ of Mandamus cannot be sought for an action that a statutory body has not yet had the occasion to perform. The court cannot direct a body to refuse something that has not been formally presented to it.

Final Order and Implications

The court disposed of the writ petition, effectively dismissing the petitioner's plea as premature without imposing any costs. The decision reaffirms the procedural framework governing film censorship in India, clarifying that legal challenges against a film's content can only be mounted after the CBFC has been given the opportunity to exercise its statutory function. Any attempt to involve the judiciary before this stage is liable to be dismissed.