Chennai, Jan 20 (PTI) The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on an appeal filed by the CBFC, challenging a single judge direction to grant a censor certificate to Tamil film ‘Jana Nayagan’, starring actor-politician Vijay.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved orders after hearing elaborate arguments from both sides.

The bench had, on January 9, stayed an order of Justice P T Asha, which allowed the petition filed by KVN Productions LLP, producer of the film and gave a direction to grant a censor certificate forthwith.

It heard the appeal after the Supreme Court had, on January 15, asked the Madras HC to decide on the plea on January 20.

The apex court had refused to entertain the plea filed by the producer of 'Jana Nayagan', challenging an interim order of the Madras HC that stayed a single-judge direction to grant censor board clearance to the movie.

When the case came up for hearing on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General A R L Sunderesan, appearing for Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) submitted that on January 5 itself an order was passed by the Chairperson of the Censor Board to put on hold the earlier decision of the examining committee recommending the grant of censor certificate.

According to him, based on a complaint from a member of the examining committee, which viewed the film, the matter was referred to the revising committee.

ASG stated that the January 5 order was not challenged by the petitioner, and there was no prayer against the decision to refer the matter to the revising committee. Therefore, no positive direction could be issued by the single judge, he added.

He said, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the single judge had given the direction.

On January 6, a mention was made about the CBFC order before the single judge and the case was taken up for hearing in the afternoon, said the ASG.

He said a direction was also given to produce the records.

"On the next day, the records were produced. A request was made repeatedly to grant time to file a counter affidavit. But without giving an opportunity, the matter was heard and orders were reserved on January 7. Finally, the orders were pronounced on January 9," he added.

The ASG said the opinion of the advisory panel (examining committee) was not binding on the board. The ultimate authority to take a decision was the Chairperson.

Since the complaint referred to religious harmony and armed forces, experts have to be invited to view the movie, he added.

He maintained that, therefore, the Chairperson took a correct decision to refer the matter to the revising committee.

Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for the producer, submitted that on December 22, the producer received a communication from the Regional Officer from Chennai informing that a five-member examining committee, which viewed the film, had recommended for screening of the movie and issuance of censor certificate.

Thereafter, he added, the Chairperson also accepted the recommendation. Parasaran held that the Chairperson cannot take a decision subsequently to refer the matter to the revising committee.

He said after the December 22 communication, the producer was waiting for the ministerial act of issuing a certificate and he has been sending representations regularly.

But to his shock and surprise, he received a communication on January 6 stating that the December 22 decision was put on hold and the matter was referred to the revising committee, the counsel said.

Based on the December 22 communication, the producer had announced the release date of the movie as January 9, said advocate Parasaran, adding that the producer had spent Rs 500 crore.

“Hence, there was urgency in the matter. Therefore, it was mentioned before the single judge to take up the case immediately. There were no disputed facts. The facts were admitted. Considering all the facts of the case, the single judge has rightly allowed the petition and gave the direction,” Parasaran said.

He said the December 22 communication stated that the movie can be released subject to excision of some scenes.

Accordingly, the 14 objectionable scenes pointed out by the examining committee were already removed, he added.

He said among five members of the examining committee, four members agreed to the release of the movie. At the instance of one member, the matter cannot be referred to the revising committee, he contended. PTI COR JR JR ROH