New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI) The release of Vijay-starrer "Jana Nayagan" has been pushed further with the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissing the producer's plea for a censor certificate and asking them to
go back to the Madras High Court for relief on January 20.
KVN Productions LLP had challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed a single-judge direction to grant censor board clearance to the Tamil movie, which was slated for a Pongal release on January 9 and is billed to be Vijay's last before his full-fledged entry into politics.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih questioned the pace at which the case was dealt with in the Madras High Court and asked the film producers to approach the division bench for relief on January 20.
It said the Madras High Court must decide the plea on January 20 itself after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the producers, said a film is a perishable item, and it would cause "serious injury" if adjudication of the dispute is delayed.
Rohatgi submitted that it is a long-settled industry practice to announce the release date before Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) clearance, and over 5,000 theatres were booked for the screening of the movie.
Justice Datta questioned the haste with which the single bench disposed of the matter within one day.
"We would welcome all judges to dispose of matters within a day or two of their filing. But this should happen in all cases. This is a blistering pace with which the matter was disposed of. The matter was filed on January 6 and decided on 7th. When the matter is fixed for hearing before the division bench on January 20th, they have a right of appeal."
Justice Datta also said that the CBFC chairperson's order dated January 6, referring the matter to the review committee, was not challenged before the single judge.
"When the division bench has listed the matter for January 20, then there is no need for the Supreme Court to interfere at this juncture," the bench observed.
Rohatgi said the communication, which was received from the CBFC on January 5, stated that they had referred the film to the review committee.
The communication was challenged before the single judge, he clarified and added that this was the same as the January 6 order of the chairperson of the CBFC. "Pending the challenge of the communication, the January 6 order was uploaded," he submitted.
Justice Datta said the writ petition should have been amended to challenge the January 6 order and pointed out that the precedent cited by the single bench was not applicable to the present case, as it is related to a service matter.
Rohatgi claimed that the entire exercise of the CBFC was "mala fide".
Justice Datta, however, said, "You go before the division bench; we are not going to entertain this."
Rohatgi urged the bench to ask the high court to decide the matter on January 20. "I have lost everything," he said.
"We are not inclined to interfere," the bench said and ordered that the division bench of the high court may endeavour to decide the appeal on January 20.
On January 9, the Madras High Court stayed a single judge's order directing the CBFC to immediately grant a censor certificate to "Jana Nayagan", leaving the fate of actor-turned-politician Vijay's film, which has drawn attention for its political overtones, in limbo.
KVN Productions LLP filed an appeal in the SC against the order passed by a division bench of the high court last Friday, which put on hold the single bench's directive to the board to issue the film's certificate forthwith.
Vijay recently launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
"Jana Nayagan" was slated for release on January 9. However, the film ran into last-minute hurdles after the CBFC did not issue certification in time.
On January 9, the high court division bench, hearing an appeal filed by the CBFC, granted an interim stay against the single judge's verdict. This came hours after Justice PT Asha directed the CBFC to give clearance to "Jana Nayagan", setting aside the film board's directive to refer the matter to a review committee.
The single-judge bench had said that once the board had decided to grant the certificate, the chairperson had no power to send the matter to the review committee. The film board immediately preferred an appeal against the order. PTI MNL MNL NSD
NSD
NSD
