Hearing for the Madras High Court case pertaining to KVN Productions and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over Vijay’s Jana Nayagan resumed after lunch. Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, stated that the producers never challenged the communication that CBFC was sending the film to a revising committee in court. He also argued that the censor board was not given enough time in the previous HC case to file a reply.
(Also Read: ₹500 cr claim”>Jana Nayagan release date hearing: CBFC calls 14 cuts to Vijay film ‘intermediary step’, questions makers’ ₹500 cr claim)
CBFC says film would’ve been cleared if not for case
Before lunch, the ASG questioned the producers for announcing a January 9 release date before receiving certification, and also called out the ₹500 crore investment claim they made. After lunch, it was pointed out to the Chief Justice that under the Cinematograph Act, a film must be examined and sanctioned by the board for a legal right to arise. It was also implied that, had there not been the court case, Jana Nayagan would’ve received a decision from the revising committee by January 26.
Producers say forced to approach court over silence
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran represented KVN Productions and argued that the actual impugned order was still not issued about Jana Nayagan being sent to the revising committee. The producers argued that they were handed only what could be termed as ‘communication’ and not an ‘order’ that could be challenged, but was quashed by the single judge in the previous case. And also that members of the examining committee cannot be complainants, revealing that the person had previously recommended that the certificate be granted.
The counsel also revealed that the producers are now being asked to reinsert the deleted scenes before sending the film to the revising committee, calling it a ‘meaningless and empty exercise’. The producers also approached the court only because there was ‘no communication’ from the CBFC between December 25 and January 5, despite repeated requests. Amazon also informed the producers on December 31 that legal action would be taken if there was no clarity on the release date. It was also pointed out that no producer announces the release date after obtaining the certificate, citing Dhurandhar 2 as an example.
Chief Justice questions ‘urgency’, says it will set precedent
The CJ remarked that the CBFC was given no time in the previous case, remarking that the case was heard in a day due to the producers creating the ‘urgency’. It was also pointed out that it will ‘set a precedent’ should the submission be accepted, with others following suit and asking to be heard in a day.
The CJ also questioned the producers over the time given to the CBFC to produce documents for the case. The counsel informed that the ASG ‘came prepared’ with a sealed cover containing the complaint and records from Mumbai. The ASG clarified that the records were from the regional office and the complaint was from Mumbai.
When the CJ asked for the Chairperson Prasoon Joshi’s decision, the ASG informed that it had been uploaded to the e-Cinepramaan portal and was not with him. “Where is this letter? The case has moved from the writ court to the appeal court, yet no one has seen this document,” remarked the CJ when informed that Prasoon had sent it to Regional Officer, Balamurugan. The HC Bench reserved its order after hearing both sides of the case.