CBFC Chairman Has No Power To Refer Film To Second Revising Committee; Action Illegal, Violative Of Cinematograph Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman's decision to refer the film 'Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare' to a second Revising Committee is illegal and in violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.

Justice N. Nagaresh said Rule 24(12) specifically mandates that where the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the Revising Committee, the Board shall itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee and that the decision of the Board or the second Revising Committee, as the case may be, shall be final.

The court noted that the Examining Committee screened eminent Malayalam Film Director Ali Akbar's film on 24.06.2022 and the majority of members of the Examining Committee recommended not to give certification to the film. It further observed that since the Chairman was not satisfied with recommendation, he decided to send the matter to a Revising Committee.

A total of five members of the first Revising Committee approved the film subject to seven modifications.

"A reading of Rule 24(12) would show that decision of the Revising Committee should be by majority. Therefore, when five out of eight members of the Revising Committee approved the film with seven modifications, the Chairman had option either to accept the recommendation of the Revising Committee or if the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the Committee, refer the matter to the Board for examination of the film," said the court.

It added that the proviso to Rule 24(12) is clear that where the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the Revising Committee, then it is only the Board which can either itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee.

"In this case, the Chairman himself has referred the film to a second Revising Committee on 18.06.2022. The said action of the Chairman is illegal and is in violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Exts.P3 and P4 orders are therefore set aside," said the court.

Akbar, who is also a screen writer and lyricist, had filed the writ petition alleging that the actions of the CBFC and its Chairman are arbitrary and infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

The court in the order noted that the movie is based on the Malabar Rebellion of 1921.

The Second Revising Committee had suggested 12 modification but according to the petitioner in effect, "total number of excisions will be much more than 12 and it will undermine the very soul of the movie".

It was contended by Senior Advocate P. Ravindran on behalf of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been referred to the CBFC if the Chairman disagreed with the report or recommendations of the first Revising Committee.

It was contended that the proviso to Rule 24(12) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 would make it clear that if the Chairman disagreed with the recommendations of a Revising Committee, he could only forward the matter to the Board for a decision. It is the Board that may then take its own decision and even opt to send the movie to a second Revising Committee, the senior counsel said.

Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu, on the other hand, contended that when the film was viewed by the Examining Committee on April 26, 2022, three members of the Committee recommended denial of certification to the film, since they found that it contained visuals as well as dialogues which were likely to affect public order, while the remaining members recommended a UA certificate.

It was thereafter that the film was referred to the Revising Committee by the Chairman of CBFC. On receiving the report of the same, the Chairman deemed it necessary to refer the film to a second Revising Committee.

It was argued by the DSG that ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner while taking the decision, and the petitioner had also participated in the screening of the film by the Committees. He had not advanced any valid reason against such insertions or modifications, the court was told.

It was further contended that the Chairman had taken the decision to send the film to a second Revision Committee after consultation with the Board, and he had only exercised his statutory powers in this regard. Additionally, it was pointed out that the modifications were suggested as the minority community was shown in a very poor light.

Advocates Reji George, Binoy Davis, Varna Manoj, and Sreedhar Ravindran also appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 

Case Title: Ali Akbar @ Ramasimhan v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 671

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment