W.P.No.380 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 07.01.2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

W.P.No.380 of 2026

and

W.M.P.No.445 of 2026

M/s.KVN Productions LLP,

Represented by is Authorized Signatory,

Mr.Venkata Narayana Konanki

at Door No.9, Ranjit Road,

Kotturpuram, Adyar,

K.B.Dasan Road, Alwarpet,

Chennai 600 020 ...Petitioner

Vs

1. Central Board of Film Certification,

Films Division Complex, Phase-1 Building,

9

th

Floor, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg,

Mumbai 400 026.

2. The Regional Officer,

Central Board of Film Certification,

No.35, Haddows Road,

Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 ...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

1/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant

Censor Certificate in the name of the petitioner being the producer of the

film “Jana Nayagan” under UA 16+ category, as per the 2

nd

respondent

communication dated 24.12.2025 within a period of24 hours.

For Petitioner: Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel

for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian

For Respondents : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, ASGI

assisted by

Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the

respondents to grant Censor Certificate in the name of the

petitioner being the producer of the film “Jana Nayagan”

under UA 16+ category, as per the 2

nd

respondent

communication dated 24.12.2025 within a period of 24

hours.”

2/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

2. On hearing the arguments on either side, the issue that engages

the attention of this Court is as follows:

“Whether the competent authority, having already

taken a decision of accepting the recommendation of the

Examining Committee, has the right to revise its earlier

decision?”

3. In order to appreciate the above issue, it is necessary to briefly set

out the facts which has culminated in the filing of the above writ petition.

Since the entire arguments are based on the Cinematograph

(Certification) Rules, 2024, oral submissions has been made by the

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the

learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG in short) who has also made

elaborate submissions on the basis of the contents of the affidavit as well

as the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the writ petitioner and the provisions contained in the Rules.

3/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Facts of the case:

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of production and

distribution of cinematographic films, in the course of its business, has

also produced the film “Jana Nayagan” which is the subject matter of this

writ petition.

5. The lead cast actor for the above film are actors, Vijay, Prakash

Raj and other leading artists from the South Indian Film Industry. The

pre-production work for the above film started in May 2024 and the pooja

ceremony for the said film was held on 04.10.2024. Thereafter on

05.10.2024, the principal shooting had commenced. On 15.12.2025, the

post production work was completed and on 27.12.2025, the audio launch

had taken place.

6.In the interregnum, on 18.12.2025, the petitioner had filed

necessary application for censor certification. The same was

acknowledged by the 2

nd

respondent's office on 19.12.2025 bearing

No.01031912202500014. The said application had been submitted after

4/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

complying with all the statutory requirements including payment of fees

and submission of documents as contemplated under Cinematograph

Certification Rules, 2024, hereinafter referred to as “The Rules”. The

petitioner thereafter received a communication from the 2

nd

respondent

dated 22.12.2025 in which it was stated that after considering the written

and oral submissions of the petitioner's authorized representative during

the personal hearing and viewing of the film, the Examining Committee

had recommended the grant of certification of the film under the category

UA 16+ subject to the compliance of certain excisions and/or

modifications.

7. On the basis of these communications, the petitioner submits that

they had carried out all the excisions (as the Examining Committee had

only recommended excisions) as directed by the 2

nd

respondent and

resubmitted the revised version on 24.12.2025. The suggested cuts were

expressly marked for re-submission. The 2

nd

respondent had, by

communication dated 29.12.2025, informed the petitioner that the

modifications had been verified and the petitioner would be granted 'UA

5/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

16+' certification. In the light of the above communication, the petitioner

attempted to proceed with the final stage of certification process. At this

juncture, they had encountered a technical limitation in the CBFC on-line

portal as there was no provision to upload the audio description and closed

caption details at the final script uploading stage. The petitioner

immediately requested the 2

nd

respondent's office to enable the said option.

Despite reminders through e-mails dated 31.12.2025 and 01.01.2026, the

petitioner had not received any substantive response. On 02.01.2026, they

had received an acknowledgement to the query and when a reminder was

sent on 05.01.2026, the 2

nd

respondent had requested the petitioner to

furnish the acknowledgement number, which was also duly provided but

however the censor certificate had not been issued.

8. While so, the petitioner received an e-mail dated 05.01.2026

from the 2

nd

respondent stating that the competent authority had decided to

refer the film “Jana Nayagan” to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of

the Rules on account of a complaint received with reference to the content

(hurting religious sensibilities and portrayal of armed forces). The said

6/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

communication was a total shock inasmuch as the Examining committee

had already recommended the grant of “UA 16+” certificate subject to

certain excisions and modifications and the same had also been complied

with. That apart, the complaint has not been made available to the

petitioner and is an undisclosed one. The Examining committee, having

viewed the film and having recommended grant of certification subject to

certain excisions, it is the contention of the petitioner that they have no

power to once again revise the order. Since no order had been issued and

only a communication had been received, the petitioner has come forward

with the above writ petition for a mandamus.

9. When the matter had come up yesterday for admission, this Court

had directed the respondents to produce the files relating to the

proceedings of the 2

nd

respondent as also the complaint which forms the

basis of the communication dated 05.01.2026. The said records have

been produced today before this Court. In addition a letter dated

06.01.2026 addressed by the 2

nd

respondent to the petitioner has also been

produced.

7/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Submissions:

10. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is

that the 2

nd

respondent had informed the petitioner vide their letter dated

22.12 2025 that the Examining Committee and the Board had come to the

conclusion that the film was suitable for unrestricted public exhibition

with a word of caution that the parents should decide as to whether any

child below the age of 16 years should be allowed to see the film,

provided the petitioner carried out certain excisions / modifications in the

film as set out in the list annexed to the said communication. Thereafter,

the petitioner also carried out the said modifications and re-submitted the

revised version after effecting the necessary cuts. After this exercise, the

communication dated 05.01.2026 has been received. The further

contention of the petitioner is that the Chairperson does not possess the

right to refer the film to a Revising Committee. The learned senior

counsel would also rely upon the following judgments in support of his

arguments:-

8/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

(2010) 9 SCC 437 Kalabharati Advertising Vs Hemant

Vimalnath Narichania and Others

(2024) 11 SCC 785 Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs State of

Bihar and Others

(2016) 3 SCC 643 Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Another

1950 SCC 833 Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs Union

of India and Others

The learned senior counsel had further argued that the order referring the

film to a Revising Committee has not been taken by the Chairman but has

been taken by the Chief Executive Officer and therefore on this ground

also the decision is without any legal basis.

11. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India

(ASGI) appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the power to

refer the film to the Revising committee is available to the Chairperson till the

certificate is granted. He would rely heavily on the time lines provided under

Rule 37 in support of his arguments. It is his further contention that, on

06.01.2026, the Chairperson uploaded the decision on the e-cinepramaan

portal and that the decision itself had been taken on 29.12.2025 and therefore,

the argument that the decision has not been taken by the Chairperson stands

negated.

9/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Discussion:

12. Heard the learned counsels on the aforesaid legal submissions

and perused the materials available on record relevant for these legal

submissions.

13. This is a case where the “Jana Nayagan” has had his opening

scene before the Constitutional Court.

14. Before proceeding to discuss the case, it would be apposite to

extract the relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Act.

2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires,—

(b) “Board” means the Board of Film Certification constituted

by the Central Government under section 3;]

3. Board of film Certification.(1) For the purpose of

sanctioning films for public exhibition, the Central Government

may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board

to be called the [Board of Film Certification] which shall

consist of a Chairman and [not less than twelve and not more

10/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

than twenty-five] other members appointed by the Central

Government.

5A. Certification of films.

1[(1) If, after examining a film or having it examined in the

prescribed manner, the Board considers that—

(a) the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or, as

the case may be, for unrestricted public exhibition with an

endorsement of the nature mentioned in the proviso to clause (i)

of sub-section (1) of section 4, it shall grant to the person

applying for a certificate in respect of the film a “U” certificate

or, as the case may be, a [‘‘UA’’ Certificate with any UA

marker]; or

(b) the film is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, but

is suitable for public exhibitionrestricted to adults or, as the

case may be, is suitable for public exhibition restricted to

members of any profession or any class of persons, it shall

grant to the person applying for a certificate in respect of the

film an “A” certificate or, as the case may be, a “S” certificate,

and cause the film to be so marked in the prescribed manner:

5B. Principles of guidance in certifying films.

(1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the

11/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the

film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty

and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly

relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality,

or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite

the commission of any offence.

 (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the

Central Government may issue such directions as it may think

fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority

competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning

films for public exhibition.

6. Revisional powers of the Central Government.

(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on it under sub-

section (1), the Central Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, direct that—

(a) a film which has been granted a certificate shall be deemed

to be an uncertified film in the whole or any part of India; or

(b) a film which has been granted a “U” certificate 1[or a

“UA” certificate or a “S” certificate] shall be deemed to be a

film in respect of which an “A” certificate has been granted; or

(c) the exhibition of any film be suspended for such period as

may be specified in the direction: Provided that no direction

issued under clause (c) shall remain in force for more than two

12/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

months from the date of the notification.

15.The relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Certification

Rules, 2024 are extracted hereunder:

2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise

requires-

(v) “Board” means the Board of Film Certification constituted

under section 3;

22. Application for examination of films.-

(1) Every application to certify a film for public exhibition shall

be made on the online portal of the Board, hereinafter referred

to as the e-cinepramaan portal in accordance with the format of

the Common Application Form as prescribed by the Board.

23. Examining Committee.- (1) On receipt of an application

under Rule 22, the Regional Officer shall appoint an Examining

Committee to examine the film and the examination shall be

made at the cost of the applicant on such date, at such place

and at such time as the Regional Officer may determine.

(2)...

(3) The Regional Officer may invite such subject or language

experts in the field of film as it may consider appropriate, for

13/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

the examination of a film by the Examining Committee:

Provided that the expert invitees who attend the meetings of the

Examining Committee shall be paid such fees and allowances

as may be prescribed by the Central Government:

(4) The film to be examined by the Examining Committee shall

be:

(a) in its final form with the background music and

all sound effects duly recorded on the film itself,

and

(b) the title, castings and credits shall be displayed

in the language of the dialogue of the film, and the

same may be displayed in any other language if so

desired by the applicant.

 (5) All previews of films for the purpose of examination for

certification and the reports and records relating thereto shall

be treated as confidential.

10)The Examining Committee shall examine the film having

regard to the principles for guidance in certifying films

specified in sub-section(1) of section 5B and the

guidelines issued by the Government under sub-section

(2) of section 5B.

11)Immediately after the examination of the film each member

of the Examining Committee attending the examination

shall before leaving the preview theatre record their

opinion in writing Form VIII set out in the Second

14/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Schedule spelling out in clear terms the reasons therefore

and state whether they consider: (a) that the film is

suitable for unrestricted public exhibition. i.e. fit for ‘U’

certificate; or

(b) that the film is suitable for unrestricted public

exhibition with an endorsement of caution as to whether

a child below the age of seven, thirteen or sixteen may be

allowed to see the film should be considered by the

parents or guardian of such child with respect to the

appropriate ‘UA marker’, i.e. fit for ‘UA with UA

marker’ certificate; or

(c) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted

to adults, i.e. fit for ‘A’ certificate; or

(d) that the film is suitable for public exhibition restricted

to members of any profession or any class of persons

having regard to the nature, content and theme of the

film, ice. fit for ‘S’ certificate; or

(e) that the film is suitable for ‘U’ or ‘UA with UA

marker’ or ‘A’ or ‘S’ certificate as the case may be if a

specified portion or portions be excised or modified there

from; or

(f) that the film is not suitable for unrestricted or

restricted public exhibition, i.e. that the film be refused a

certificate; and if the Chairperson is away from the

regional centre where the film is examined, the form

15/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

aforesaid shall be prepared in duplicate.

14) The Examining Officer shall within three working

days, submit the recommendations of all members of the

Examining Committee to be considered by the authority

prescribed in Third Schedule based on the type and length

of the content.

24. Certification:- On receipt of the record referred to in sub-

rule (14) of rule 23, the authority having jurisdiction in the

matter as given in Third Schedule shall take further action on

behalf of the Board in conformity with 8 the recommendation of

the Examining Committee either unanimous or by majority,

unless the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 25 are not

attracted:

Provided that in case of a short film when the Committee is

divided in its opinion, the Chairperson shall either examine the

film himself and take, or direct the Regional Officer concerned

to take further action on behalf of the Board to give effect to his

decision.

25. Revising Committee:- (1) On receipt of the record referred

to in Rule 23, the Chairperson may on his own motion or on the

16/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

request of the applicant upon a representation made under sub-

section (2) of section 4, refer it to a Revising Committee

constituted for the purpose.

26. On receipt of the orders of the Board under section 4 or

section SA, the Regional Officer shall communicate the same to

the applicant through the e-cinepramaan portal and take such

other steps in accordance with the said orders as they may

deem necessary.

  27. Issue of certificate subject to removal of portions of film:-

(1) Where the applicant is informed by a Regional Officer that

a film will not be granted ‘U’ or ‘UA with UA marker’ or ‘A’ or

‘S’ certificate, as the case may be unless a specified portion or

portions thereof be removed from the film, the Regional Officer

may issue such a certificate if he is satisfied on a declaration

made in writing (in Form IX set out in the Second Schedule) by

the applicant that the portion or portions objected to have been

excised from film and from all copies thereof, wherever they

may exist.

Explanation:- For the purpose of being satisfied that the

portion or portions objected to have been excised from the film

and from all copies thereof, the Regional Officer or the

Chairperson may at the expense of the applicant examine the

relevant portions of the film or cause it or them to be examined

by one or more members of the advisory panel at such time and

place as they may determine.

17/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

(2) A certificate issued under sub-rule (1) shall be endorsed

with a specification of the portion or portions required to be

removed and a statement of the exact length of each part or

parts removed and in the case of reduction of scene or

sequences, it shall mention the length of the portion reduced

and the length of the portion retained and shall bear a clearly

visible triangle drawn at the left-hand bottom corner of the

certificate.

37. Time limit in relation to certification of films: -

(1) After an application under rule 22 for the certification of a

film, complete in all respects (including the payment of fee) is

received, the Board shall scrutinize the application within seven

days from the receipt thereof.

 (2) The Board shall, within fifteen days from receiving an

application under sub-rule (1) refer the film for examination to

an Examining Committee.

(4)(a)....

(b)...

(c) In case, where the members of the Examining Committee

after the examination of the film submit to the Chairperson a

provisional report indicating that expert opinion on subjects

depicted in the film such as subjects relating to defense or

foreign relations or any particular religion or law or medicine

or any other subject, should be sought before the final report is

submitted, the Chairperson may after taking into consideration

18/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

the circumstances of the case specify a time limit for obtaining

the expert opinion and for the submission of the final report of

the Examining Committee thereafter.

(5) (a) On receipt of the orders of the Board on the

recommendations of the Examining Committee, in case where

sub-section (2) of section 4 is applicable, the communication to

the applicant shall be issued within three days. (b) The

applicant shall submit his reply within five working days of the

receipt of the communication.

(6) In case where the film is not referred to a Revising

Committee, a certificate shall be issued, or decision

communicated within two days.

(7) (a) In cases where a film is to be referred to a Revising

Committee, the Revising Committee shall be constituted within

twenty days from the receipt of the necessary documents from

the applicant.

(b) The provisions of sub-rule (3) to (6) shall apply mutatis

mutandis to the examination of films by the Revising

Committee.

(c) When a film is referred to another Revising Committee or to

the Board in terms of proviso to sub-rule (13) of rule 25, the

time limit will be further extended on the lines of clauses (a)

and (b) of this sub-rule.

(8) The applicant shall submit the modifications and surrender

the cuts, if any, and the affected contents together with full

19/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

particulars thereof, within a period of fourteen working days

from the date of the final orders of the Board under section 4:

(9) The modification or cuts and the affected contents shall be

examined by the regional officer within ten working days of the

submission of the same.

(10) If the modification or cuts are found to be due and

adequate on the scrutiny of the relevant contents and all

particulars necessary for the presentation of the certificate are

fully furnished, certificate shall be prepared and issued within

five working days of the date of submission of the film or upload

of the final script on e-cinepramaan portal, as the case may be,

as required under these rules.

 (11) If however the modification or cuts are found to be

inadequate on a scrutiny of the relevant contents, the regional

officer shall record the same and send within two days a further

communication to the applicant through the e-cinepramaan

portal for compliance with the ordersof the Board.

 (12) The applicant shall submit further modification or cuts to

the regional officer within three days from the date of receipt of

the communication.

(13) The Regional Officer shall again verify further

modification or cuts and the contents within five days of the

receipt of the same and if the cuts are found to be adequate a

certificate shall be issued.

20/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

16.Having extracted the aforesaid provisions, it would be apposite

to understand the procedure contemplated under the 2024 Rules for

certification of a film. A film when submitted for certification follows the

procedure set out below.

(i) The application to certify the film is made through the on-line

portal of the Board (e-cinepramaan) as per the format prescribed by the

Board (Rule 22(1)).

(ii) This application has to be made through the Regional Officer

(Rule 22(3)) read with provisos which are not relevant for the case on

hand.

(iii) The application should be accompanied by the documents

prescribed in Rule 22(4) and must be submitted online. Sub-Rule(6)

makes it clear that the application should be accompanied only with the

documents prescribed in Sub Rule (4).

(iv) On receipt of the application contemplated under Rule 22, the

21/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Regional Officer shall appoint an Examining Committee (Rule 23(1)).

Sub Rule 2 to Rule 23 provides the composition of this Committee.

(v) Sub Rule 3 further gives the Regional Officer the power to invite

experts in the field of film in relation either to the subject or the language.

(vi) Sub Rule(10) directs the Examining Committee to examine the

film keeping mind the principles specified in this regard under Section 5B

(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the guidelines specified in Sub

Section 2 of Section 5B of the Act.

(vii) After examining the film and before leaving the preview

theatre, the members of the Examining Committee are required to record

in writing their opinion in Form VIII set out in the second schedule, the

reasons for their opinion and state whether they consider the film to fall

under any of the categories set out in clauses (a) to (f) of Sub Rule 11.

(viii) Sub Rule 13 places a duty on the Examining Officer to ensure

22/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

that members have recorded their recommendation clearly leaving no

room for doubt and have specified in clear terms each excision or

modification, that each of them have signed Form VIII and if the report of

any member is incomplete to bring this fact to the notice of the member

concerned.

(ix) The Examining Officer shall thereafter submit the above

referred recommendations to the Authority prescribed in the Third

Schedule.

(x) After the authority, viz., Chairperson receives this

recommendation, there are two options available to him.

(a) He shall proceed to take further action based on

the recommendation of the Examining Committee which

may be unanimous or by majority; or

(b) He may proceed under Rule 25(1).

This power is exercised by the Authority on behalf of the Board.

23/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

(xi) In case the Chairperson after examining the recommendation

suomotu (on his own motion) or on the request of the applicant who is

aggrieved by the decision of the Board taken under Section 4(2) of the

Cinematograph Act, shall refer the film to the Revising committee

constituted for this purpose.

(xii) Once the Revising committee is constituted it shall follow the

same procedure as set out in Sub Rules 5 to 10 of Section 23 for

examining the film. The members of the Revising Committee are also

bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 23(11) i.e.,

recording their opinion in writing in Form VIII.

(xiii) Rules 23(11) and 25(10) respectively sets out the categories of

recommendations that the Examining Committee and Revising Committee

should give. One of the recommendation contemplated in these Rules,

which is in consonance with Section 4(2) of the Act, is to grant “U/UA

with UA marker /A /S certificate as the case may be, if specified portion

or portions be excised or modified there from.

24/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

(xiv) Once a recommendation to grant the aforementioned

certification subject to excision / modification is taken then Rule 26 comes

into play.

(xv) Rule 26 contemplates that once the orders of the Board are

received, the Regional Officer shall communicate the same to the

applicant through the designated portal and thereafter take such steps are

set out in the order.

(xvi) Where the decision of the Board is to grant certification subject

to excisions / modifications then the procedure contemplated under Rule

27 kicks in and the certifications moves past the stage of Rule 25. This is

clear from the fact that Rule 27(1) provides that after the applicant is

informed about the recommendation of the Board to excise / modify

certain portions/ portions of the film and the applicant complies with the

recommendation and submits a Form IX set out in the second schedule,

the Regional Officer shall proceed to issue the certificate.

25/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

(xvii) The explanation to Rule 27(1) further provides that in order to

confirm whether the portion / portions that are objected to have been

excised / modified from the film and all its copies, the relevant portions

may be examined either by the Chairperson or the Regional Officer or by

one or more members of the Advisory Panel.

17.Procedures that have have been followed for grant of

certification on the case on hand with relevant dates:

On 18.12.2025, the applicant in compliance with the procedure

contemplated under Rule 22(ii) had submitted his application on the

online portal. On receipt of this application, the Regional Officer had

appointed the Examining Committee. The members of the Committee in

keeping with the procedure contemplated under Rule 11 had each

submitted their recommendation in Form VIII in their hand after viewing

the film on 19.12.2025. The members had unanimously recommended

that the film should be granted the UA marker certificate provided the

portions specified are excised. The recommendation is not of a majority

but is unanimous. This recommendation has been submitted to the

26/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

authority concerned and the Authority had decided to accept the

unanimous recommendation of the Examining Committee. This is evident

from the communication dated 22.12.2025 sent by the Regional Officer to

the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 26. The petitioner who had the

option of requesting the chairperson to refer the same to the Revising

Committee under Rule 25(1) chose to accept the recommendation.

Thereafter, the petitioner had excised the portions as directed by the

Examining Committee and submitted Form IX on 24.12.2025. The

original files produced for the scrutiny of this Court shows that on

24.12.2025 the said portions have been examined by one of the members,

which is in compliance of the explanation to Rule 27(1). Therefore, what

remains is only the issue of the certificate by the Regional Officer as per

the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

18.However, the twist to the plot comes in the form of a

complaint by one of the members of the Examining Committee after the

Board had decided to issue certification subject to excision of the portions

pointed out by the members of the Examining Committee. The complaint

27/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

that has been produced for the scrutiny of the Court makes interesting

reading.

“Dear SIR,

I came to know that Tamil Film Jana Nayagan(Tamil)

which is going to be released across India has been

approved by Examination Committee at Chennai without

following the due procedure.

The Film has shown some visuals and dialogues in which

foreign powers creating religious conflict at large scale in

India which may disturb religious harmony of this great

country.

There are many Army related references in the film but no

defence expert has been included in the EC to address

these issues.

There are procedural lapses during examination of the

film which is gross violation of the cinematograph Act and

Rules.

I m an APM member and I have watched the film on 19th

December, 2025 but my objection were not considered

during examination of the Film.

So we humbly request you to intervene in the procedure

and direct to the competent authority to re examination of

the film. The film is going to be released on 9th January,

2026.”

28/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

19. This complaint has to be juxtaposed with the recommendation

made by the very same complainant in the Form VIII which has been

made and signed by him in his own hand.

The 1

st

contention in the complaint relates to the very same points

raised by him in S.Nos.1,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11 of his Form VIII and these

portions have been excised.

His 2

nd

contention relating the Army has not been referred in the

Form VIII and in S.No.7 therein he has asked for excision of the visuals

involving the National Flag which has also been excised.

20.It is therefore crystal clear that the complainant's grievance

that he had not been granted an opportunity appears to be an afterthought

and appears motivated. Further, such a volte face by a member of an

Examining committee who had made a recommendation after viewing and

assimilating the film would give rise to a dangerous trend of members

reneging on their recommendation and the sanctity placed on the decision

of the Examining Committee of the CBFC would stand eroded.

21.Let us now examine if the Chairperson has the Authority to

29/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

take on file this complaint and thereafter, revise the decision of the Board.

As narrated supra, the Chairperson is clothed with power to suomotu or

on a request of the applicant alone to refer the film to a Revising

Committee and this power can be exercised only prior to the decision

contemplated under Rule 24 being taken and communicated as per Rule

26. A perusal of the communication dated 22.12.2025 addressed by the

Regional Officer to the petitioner clearly denotes that the Board has

accepted the recommendation of the Examining Committee. It would be

useful to extract the contents of the said letter.

“.....that the film has been viewed by the Examining

Committee and the Board has come to the conclusion that the

film is suitable for Unrestricted Public Exhibition with an

endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any

child below the age of 16 years may be allowed to see the film

should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child,

provided you carry out the excisions / modifications in the film

listed in the Annexure. You are accordingly requested to carry

out the given excisions / modifications, so that the film may be

sanctioned for unrestricted public exhibition, after verification

that the excisions are in order.”

22.A mere perusal of the above would clearly show that the

30/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Authority viz., the Chairperson has decided on behalf of the Board to take

further action in conformity with the unanimous recommendation of the

Examining Committee. Therefore, on and from 22.12.2025 the power of

the Chairperson to exercise his power under Rule 25 came to an end.

Therefore, the decision of the Chairperson which has been uploaded only

on 06.01.2026 is without jurisdiction. Further, the letter dated 22.12.2025

clearly spells out the recommendation of the Examining Committee as

accepted by the Board which was “to grant UA certification subject to

excision”. Therefore, once the excisions are done the certification

automatically follows. This recommendation is in tune with the

provisions of Rule 23(11)(e) of the Rules. That the Board including the

Chairperson had taken a decision to grant certification subject to excisions

is confirmed by a mere reading of the letter dated 06.01.2026 produced

before this court on 07.01.2026. In this letter the 2

nd

respondent

acknowledges that the Chairperson has decided to refer the matter to the

Revising Committee “superseding the earlier communication dated

22.12.2025”.

31/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

23.The learned ASG has placed an argument that without seeking

to quash the order dated 06.01.2026 the petitioner cannot seek the issue of

a certification. As discussed supra, the exercise of his powers under Rule

25 by the Chairperson after 22.12.2025 is one without jurisdiction since

the powers of the Chairperson to refer the film to a Revising Committee

stood abdicated as soon as he, on behalf of the Board, had decided to

accept the recommendation of the Examining Committee. Therefore, his

decision to refer the film to the Revising Committee cannot be sustained.

The argument of the learned ASG that the power under Rule 25 could be

exercised even after Rule 27 cannot be sustained in the light of the above

discussion. That apart on repeated questioning the learned ASG on

instructions has submitted that the Chairperson has decided to refer the

matter to the Revising Committee only on the basis of the complaint

received from the member of the Examining Committee. A reading of

Rule 25 indicates that this power can be exercised suomotu or on the

request of the applicant. The suomotu power has to be exercised by the

Chairperson as soon as the record of the recommendation is received

under Rule 23 (14) and before the Board takes action under Rule 24.

32/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

Therefore, even if the argument of the learned ASG that the suomotu

power can be exercised based on the complaint is accepted, such a power

should be exercised before the decision under Rule 24 is taken and

communicated under Rule 26. In the case on hand the very complaint is

dated after the decision communicated on 22.12.2025.

24.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision is reported in 1989 (2)

SCC 691 as (Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna

Jaya vs V.R. Rudani & Others) had, after discussing the evolution of the law

relating to mandamus, its implementation and the explanation given by Lord

Denning to the scope of Judicial review, held as follows in paragraph 17:

“17. There, however, the prerogative writ of

mandamus is confined only to public authorities to

compel performance of public duty. The 'public

authority' for them mean every body which is created

by statute--and whose powers and duties are defined by

statue. So Government departments, local authorities,

police authorities, and statutory undertakings and

corporations, are all 'public authorities'. But there is

no such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ

'in the nature of mandamus'.Article 226 confers wide

powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature

33/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from

the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued

to "any person or authority". It can be issued "for the

enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for

any other purpose".

25.Further in a judgement of the Supreme Court reported as State of

Uttar Pradesh and others., vs Dinesh Singh Chauhan reported in (2016) 9

SCC 749 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the following

Question, held as follows:

“19. Having considered the rival submissions, the first

question that needs to be answered is:

whether the High Court exceeded its

jurisdiction in setting aside the

Government Order dated 28.02.2014

providing for reservation to in-service

candidates, when the writ petition filed by

the in-service candidates was limited to

equate them with the in-service

candidates who had the experience of

working in remote or difficult areas.

Indeed, the challenge before the High Court was

limited. However, the High Court having held that the

State Government could not have issued such order in

34/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

violation of Regulation 9, quashed the same. The High

Court had invited the parties to advance arguments

on the validity of the said Government Order before

passing the final order. The High Court relied on the

decisions of the Supreme Court and opined that it was

not permissible, in law, for the State Government to

provide reservation for in-service candidates in Post-

Graduate “Degree” courses in violation of

Regulation 9. Concededly, action taken on the basis of

such a void Government Order would be nothing

short of a nullity in law. As a result, the High Court

proceeded to issue directions to follow the admission

process for Post Graduate “Degree” Courses strictly

in conformity with Regulation 9. The High Court thus

moulded the relief on the basis of the settled legal

position. That approach is unexceptionable, except

that it may be necessary to mould the relief further as

would be indicated hereinafter.

The Learned Judge went on to deprecate the executive instruction brought in

pending the writ by contending as follows:

“24. By now, it is well established that

Regulation 9 is a self-contained Code regarding the

procedure to be followed for admissions to medical

courses. It is also well established that the State has

35/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

no authority to enact any law muchless by executive

instructions that may undermine the procedure for

admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses

enunciated by the Central Legislation and

Regulations framed thereunder, being a subject

falling within the Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh

Schedule of the Constitution (See: Preeti Srivastava

(Dr.) V. State of M.P.[2]). The procedure for selection

of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree Courses

is one such area on which the Central Legislation and

Regulations must prevail.”

Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the issue as follows in

paragraph 47:

“47. We must hold that the High Court was justified

in quashing the stated Government Order providing for

reservation to in- service candidates, being violative of

Regulation 9 as in force. ”

26.That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported

in 2024 11 SCC 785[Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others]

has clearly held that a writ court has the power to mould the relief and justice

cannot be forsaken on the alter of technicalities.

36/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

27. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the subsequent decision to refer

the film to a Revising Committee has been taken after the Board had

recommended the grant of certification after carrying out the excisions, the said

decision is one without jurisdiction and this Court exercising jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India can very well mould the relief by

setting aside the decision of the Chairperson uploaded in the e-cinepramaan

portal on 06.01.2026 and issue mandamus to the 2

nd

respondent to issue the

certification as contemplated under Rule 27(1) of the Rules taking note of the

excisions submitted in Form IX on 24.12.2025 forthwith and in tune with Rule

37(6) of the rules.

28. This Writ Petition is allowed on the above lines. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.01.2026

Index: Yes/No

Internet :Yes/No

Neutral Citation : Yes/ No

srn

To

1. Central Board of Film Certification,

Films Division Complex, Phase-1 Building,

37/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

9

th

Floor, Dr.G.Deshmukh Marg,

Mumbai 400 026.

2. The Regional Officer,

Central Board of Film Certification,

No.35, Haddows Road,

Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006

38/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.380 of 2026

P.T.ASHA, J.,

srn

W.P.No.380 of 2026

and

W.M.P.No.445 of 2026

09.01.2026

39/39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis