Madras High Court | Proportionality Test Governs Film Censorship Under Cinematograph Act, 1952 | Vetri Maaran Directed To Modify ‘Manushi
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Madras Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the certification of a motion picture upon the petitioner carrying out specific modifications and excisions mandated by the court. The court ordered that the modifications must be executed within two weeks, after which the Central Board of Film Certification shall issue the certificate within a further two-week period. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The dispute arose from recommendations made by the Revising Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) dated 13 June 2025. The Committee had directed the petitioner to excise or modify visuals, dialogues, and scenes, failing which the certification for the film titled "Manushi" was refused. The petitioner challenged this refusal before the High Court seeking quashing of the recommendations and issuance of certification.
An earlier writ petition had been filed by the petitioner, wherein a direction was sought to re-examine the film with expert involvement. The petitioner contended that the refusal by the Examining and Revising Committees was broad and non-specific, and that without detailed indication of objectionable portions, editing would be unfeasible. On 4 June 2025, the court recorded that the Revising Committee had cited reasons such as the film being against the integrity of the State, contemptuous of certain community groups, defamatory of government policies, stereotyping regions, and containing scenes against the interests of the country.
The court held that the petitioner required specific guidance on objectionable portions to be edited and directed the CBFC to inform the petitioner of the same. Pursuant to this, the Revising Committee issued fresh proceedings dated 13 June 2025, detailing thirty-seven objections to the film.
The petitioner remained aggrieved and filed the present writ petition, which was heard by the Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh. The court, in its hearing on 19 August 2025, ordered a personal viewing of the film at the Music College preview theatre, with the Committee members also present, to assess the validity of the objections. The screening was held on 24 August 2025.
The film "Manushi" was described in the judgment as a narrative focusing on a father and daughter entrapped in suspicion by police authorities, exploring themes of systemic prejudice, ideological bias, caste discrimination, and political suspicion. The judgment records that the film presented intense dialogues and philosophical reflections, probing faith, ideology, language, and identity, while ultimately depicting human endurance against institutional injustice.
The legal framework under examination included the Cinematograph Act, 1952, specifically Sections 5-A and 5-B, the Cinematograph Rules, 2024, and the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition (1991). Judicial precedents considered included K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574, Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC 1, CBFC v. Yadavalaya Films, 2007 (1) CTC 1, and Indibily Creative (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2020) 12 SCC 436. The test of decency, morality, and obscenity under Article 19(2) of the Constitution was extensively examined.
The petitioner argued that several objections raised by the CBFC, including dialogues referencing caste discrimination, ideological debate, and depiction of police actions, were intrinsic to the theme of the film and essential for its narrative. The respondents contended that the objections fell squarely within the statutory restrictions under Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act and the Guidelines of 1991.
The court undertook a proportionality test, examining whether restrictions imposed were necessary in a democratic society, whether they pursued a legitimate aim, and whether the interference with free speech was proportionate. Ultimately, the Bench scrutinized each of the thirty-seven objections raised by the CBFC, accepting some, rejecting others, and modifying certain directives.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh recorded several judicial observations. On the subject of censorship, the judgment quoted the Constitution Bench decision in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India: “The censorship imposed on the making and exhibition of films is in the interests of society. If the regulations venture into something which goes beyond this legitimate opening to restrictions, they can be questioned on the ground that a legitimate power is being abused.”
The judgment further recorded the principle set out in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram: “In democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song. Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken for granted. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern.”
With reference to "Bandit Queen" considered in Bobby Art International, the judgment recorded: “Where the theme is of social relevance, it must be allowed to prevail. Such a theme does not offend human sensibilities nor extol the degradation or denigration of women.”
Addressing artistic freedom, the court noted the view in Indibily Creative v. State of W.B.: “The Constitution does not permit those in authority who disagree to crush the freedom of others to believe, think and express.”
The Bench also cited Patanjali Sastri, CJ in State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196, observing: “The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.”
Applying these tests to the facts of the case, the court noted: “The aforesaid exercise has been done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality thereby ensuring that artistic freedom is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures. Ultimately the Court must balance two competing interests, the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the legitimate state interest in censorship.”
The court also referred to the G.D. Khosla Committee report, noting: “The most sensible and the most rational way of dealing with the question is to declare that no film must transgress the reasonable restriction clause of the Constitution and that the film must be judged as a whole.”
The court directed the petitioner to carry out the modifications and excisions as set out in paragraph 32 of the judgment. The directive recorded: “In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to carry out the modifications/excisions set out in the table in paragraph 32, supra, within a period of 2 weeks from today. Upon such modifications/excisions being carried out and resubmitted the 1st respondent shall issue an appropriate certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 within a period of 2 weeks thereafter.”
The writ petition was disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was ordered to be closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.M. Subash, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Kumaraguru, Senior Panel Counsel
Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. Chairman, Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.
Case Number: WP No. 31016 of 2025 and WMP No. 34757 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
