The Madras High Court has taken a strong stance against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for its refusal to certify the Tamil film Manushi, directed by Vetri Maaran, without clearly pointing out the specific scenes it found objectionable. The Court observed that such a move not only affects the fundamental rights of filmmakers but also leads to undue hardship.
While hearing the writ petition filed by acclaimed filmmaker Vetri Maaran, Justice Anand Venkatesh stated, "Making a movie is a part of the right to speech and expression. As such, the filmmakers are already suffering from a lot of difficulties. You cannot deny certification for an entire movie without specifying the objectionable portions and expect a filmmaker to shoot the entire movie afresh."
Read Also:-Madras High Court Upholds KYC and Night-Time Ban for Online Real Money Games
The Court directed the CBFC to either list out the objectionable scenes or to watch the film along with the filmmakers and indicate which scenes were problematic. The judge emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in the certification process and adjourned the matter for a week, instructing the CBFC counsel to obtain necessary instructions.
The plea was filed by Vetri Maaran through his production house, Grassroot Film Company. He informed the Court that he had submitted the application for certification of Manushi on September 11, 2024. After viewing the film, the Regional Officer of CBFC refused to certify it, but did not offer any opportunity for a personal hearing or explain which parts of the movie were considered inappropriate.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Stays Rustication of MSW Student for Graffiti, Allows Him to Complete Course
Subsequently, the film was referred to the Revising Committee, which also recommended denying certification. According to Maaran, the Committee claimed that the film was against the integrity of the State, contemptuous towards a specific community, and critical of government policies. Yet, even at this stage, no personal hearing was granted to him.
Highlighting these procedural lapses, Maaran argued that the entire process followed by CBFC was not in alignment with the Cinematograph Act. He told the Court that a blanket refusal without reason or opportunity for redress was not only arbitrary but also amounted to an unreasonable administrative ban which infringed upon his right to practice his profession under Article 19 of the Constitution.
"The procedure adopted by the Board was manifestly arbitrary, untenable and not in accordance with the spirit of the country," submitted Maaran, while asserting that the refusal effectively violated his freedom of trade and expression.
He also told the Court that if certain parts of the film were indeed deemed objectionable, he was willing to make necessary edits. "I am ready to modify or remove any specific scene or dialogue that exceeds the permissible limits of my constitutional right," he stated.
Maaran urged the High Court to direct the Regional Officer of CBFC to consider his representation afresh and issue a speaking order after properly reviewing the film.
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman, CBFC and Another
Case Number: WP No. 18036 of 2025
