A hearing was held at the Madras High Court on Wednesday afternoon when an advocate representing KVN Productions and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) argued over Vijay’s final film, Jana Nayagan’s fate. Justice PT Asha reserved judgment after hearing both sides of the argument, and it is expected that it will be delivered on January 9. (Also Read: UK censor board clears Vijay’s Jana Nayagan for release amid CBFC troubles in India; film has ‘blood, sexual violence’)
It was disclosed in court that the person who filed a complaint that derailed the censor certificate before its scheduled January 9th release was a member of the examining committee. The ASG also revealed that it was the CBFC Chairperson’s decision to halt the certification process for the Vijay film. Key takeaways from the court case.
CBFC explains why certification of Jana Nayagan was deferred
ASG ARL Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, handed over the complaint they received about Jana Nayagan to the court and informed that a member of the examining committee had raised the complaint. His objections were not recorded during the viewing of the film. The ASG also argued that the CBFC Chairperson had the authority to order a review of the film even after it was screened to the examining committee, as was the case in this instance.
It was argued that the film features certain defence force emblems for which experts from defence services should’ve been consulted. The Chairperson had written to the Chennai Regional Office, informing them of the complaint received by the CBFC and directing that the process of issuing the certificate be halted. It was also recommended that the film be viewed by a revising committee on December 29. This was informed to the producers on January 5 and uploaded to the e-Cinepramaan portal on January 6.
Justice PT Asha questioned the CBFC multiple times about how a film that was given a UA 16+ certificate on December 22 would run into this issue. The judge also remarked that such complaints against CBFC were ‘not healthy’, questioning the delay in informing the producers about the film being sent to the revising committee. It was argued that once the certificate is granted, the government cannot intervene, but in this case, the power was exercised by the CBFC Chairperson before the certificate was issued, not by the government.
Producers question the process and delay
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for KVN Productions, pointed out that the communication they received regarding the deferment of the censor certificate did not come from the CBFC Chairperson, but from the CEO, who wrote to the RO. It was also argued that when the examining committee had five members, how the process could be halted due to a single person’s objection.
The counsel also stated that the complaint was filed only after the committee’s recommendations were formally recorded. It was questioned how a committee member became a complainant and why it had not been disclosed to the production house previously. The complaint isn’t reflected in the e-Cinepramaan records, the counsel claimed. It was also pointed out that the e-Cinepramaan portal had clearly recorded the examining committee’s recommendation for the CBFC to grant a UA 16+ certificate to Jana Nayagan.
Arguing that the CBFC must act within the framework of law, it was put forth in court that the producers had already made the 27 cuts and tweaks recommended by the examining committee. It was revealed in court that one of the grounds cited was that the film allegedly hurt the sentiments of a minority community. The counsel questioned why this objection was raised, given that a member from that community was not part of the examining committee.
About Jana Nayagan
Disclaimer: We do not own any of the content, ideas, images, or text presented here. All rights belong to their respective owners. For more information and to view the original source, please visit the following link: