CHENNAI: In a setback to the makers of Tamil movie Jana Nayagan, starring actor turned politician Vijay, the Madras high court on Tuesday set aside an order passed by a single judge directing CBFC to grant UA certificate to the movie. Citing serious allegations against the content of the film, including scenes depecting foregion powers creating disturbances in the country and depction of armed forces in a bad light, the first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan remands the case back to the single judge to hear the case afresh after giving adequate oppertunity for the CBFC to file its response.
The bench passed the order while allowing an appeal moved by the CBFC challenging the single judge order. Representing the CBFC, additional advocate general A R L Sundaresan submitted that the board was not provided with an opportunity to file its counter to the plea moved by the makers of the movie before the single judge.He further added that the single judge quashed the communication of the board dated Jan 5 for review of the film by the revising committee, which was not challenged by the petitioner, KVN Productions LLP.“We told the single judge that the decision of the board dated Jan 5 was not challenged. We should have been permitted to file a counter. However, the single judge decided to hear the matter on merits,” the ASG said.The revising committee is bound to take a decision on the issue within 20 days. If there were no impediments, the body would take a decision by Jan 26, he added.Representing the producer, senior advocate Satish Parasaran argued that the regional office of the CBFC unanimously recommended granting a UA certificate to the film, and the same was communicated to the producer. However, one of the members later made a different decision and raised a complaint against the movie, which is against the law, he said.“The producers deleted the scenes that the board objected to, but they (board) wanted us to re-introduce the scenes and submit the movie and then delete the same scenes. It is an empty exercise,” the senior counsel said.The decision to review the movie was taken based on a complaint by a member of the examining committee. Members of the examining committee could never become the complainant as per the statute, he added.
