Madras HC Judge to Screen Film in Unorthodox Review of CBFC Censorship

CHENNAI – In a move that underscores the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter in disputes over artistic expression, a Madras High Court judge will personally view a film to adjudicate the reasonableness of 37 cuts demanded by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). This hands-on approach by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh signals a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between acclaimed filmmaker Vetri Maaran and the state's censorship body over the Tamil movie 'Manushi'.

The case, which revolves around themes of custodial torture and state power, brings to the forefront the perennial tension between the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the "reasonable restrictions" the state can impose. Justice Venkatesh's decision to hold a private screening on Sunday, August 24, 2025, alongside CBFC members, elevates the judicial review process from a purely abstract legal debate to a direct, substantive examination of the contested material.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Blanket Rejection

The legal saga began when the producer of 'Manushi', Vetri Maaran's Grassroot Film Company, sought certification for the film directed by Gopi Nainar ('Aramm' fame). The movie, starring Andrea Jeremiah, reportedly delves into the harrowing ordeal of a woman suspected of being a terrorist who faces brutal custodial torture.

In September 2024, the CBFC's examining and screening committees refused to issue any certificate. The board's rationale, as cited in court documents, was that the film "had portrayed the State in bad light" and had problematically conflated "leftist communism" with "mainstream communism." This blanket rejection, without specifying objectionable scenes, prompted Mr. Maaran to file his first writ petition in June 2025.

In his initial plea, Mr. Maaran argued that the CBFC's decision violated principles of natural justice. He contended that he was neither given an opportunity to be heard before the denial nor informed of the specific views of the committee members. During these initial proceedings, Justice Venkatesh expressed skepticism about the board's approach, questioning how a "blanket rejection of censor certificate for the entire movie" could be issued without a detailed list of problematic content.

Responding to the court's observation, the CBFC reviewed its decision and, on June 17, 2025, submitted a list of objectionable portions requiring edits. Satisfied that the procedural lapse was rectified, the court disposed of the first petition, permitting the producer to proceed in accordance with the law, which implicitly included the right to challenge the specifics of the required cuts.

---

The Second Challenge: The Arbitrariness of 37 Cuts

The dispute escalated when the CBFC presented a formidable list of 37 mandatory cuts. This led Mr. Maaran to file a second writ petition, which is currently before Justice Venkatesh. The petitioner's central argument is that the CBFC's demands are arbitrary, excessive, and not grounded in the established guidelines of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The petition highlights the seemingly trivial nature of some of the required edits, citing the board's insistence on removing common Tamil colloquialisms like 'saniyan' (a term of scolding). This specific example was used to argue that the CBFC's actions were not a measured application of censorship norms but an overzealous and unreasonable exercise of its authority. The filmmaker contends that such cuts dilute the film's narrative authenticity and creative integrity.

Faced with opposing arguments on the necessity and justification of each of the 37 cuts, Justice Venkatesh declared that he was left with little choice but to form his own opinion. "Now, I will have no choice but to watch the movie myself, along with the committee members, to ascertain whether they were justified in suggesting the 37 cuts," the judge stated in court on Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

He has directed the parties to arrange for a private screening at a theatre in Chennai and instructed the central government's senior panel counsel to ensure the presence of the CBFC committee members, setting the stage for a unique judicial proceeding.

---

Legal Implications and Judicial Scrutiny

Justice Venkatesh's decision is a powerful assertion of the court's power of judicial review over administrative bodies like the CBFC. While courts are generally hesitant to substitute their own judgment for that of an expert body, this case appears to be one where the court perceives a potential for arbitrary action that warrants a deeper, more direct inquiry.

1. Beyond Procedural Correctness: The court's focus has shifted from the procedural irregularity of the initial blanket ban to a substantive review of the CBFC's reasoning. By watching the film, the judge aims to assess whether the cuts are rationally connected to the objectives of the Cinematograph Act—such as maintaining public order, decency, or morality—or if they are an infringement on the filmmaker's right to expression.

2. The Test of Reasonableness: The core legal question is whether the 37 restrictions are "reasonable." This involves balancing the filmmaker's artistic vision and the public's right to view diverse perspectives against the state's legitimate interests. The inclusion of cuts on seemingly innocuous words like 'saniyan' will likely be a key factor in the court's assessment of the board's overall reasonableness.

3. A Precedent for Future Disputes?: This method of adjudication, while not entirely unprecedented, is uncommon. It could encourage other courts to adopt a more hands-on approach in censorship cases, particularly when the number of cuts is extensive or their justification appears tenuous. For media and entertainment lawyers, this case serves as a critical reminder that a well-reasoned challenge to the CBFC's substantive decisions can prompt direct judicial intervention.

The outcome of this unique screening and the subsequent court order will be closely watched. It could either reinforce the CBFC's discretionary powers or delineate clearer boundaries for state censorship, potentially setting a new benchmark for how Indian courts protect artistic freedom against perceived administrative overreach.