CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH CMA No. 1852 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 14884 OF 2026 Solomon Vineeth Kumar S/o. Rajkumar ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Chairperson Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 2. The Regional Officer Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 3. Revising Committee Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 ..Respondent(s) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908 r/w.Section 5C of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2026 in C.NO.CA030705202600036 passed by the 2nd Respondent and allow the CMA. For Appellant(s): Mr.B M Subash https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 9 For Respondent(s): M/s.K.Srinivasa Murthy Standing Panel Counsel For R1 To R3 (memo Of Appearance Filed) Judgment This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of CPC, 1908 r/w.Section 5C of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 against the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings C No.CA030705202600036. 2. The appellant is the producer of the Movie “ Dashamakan”. The application for certification of the film was submitted before the Central Board of Film Certification and it was screened before the examining committee on 25.05.2026. It was thereafter referred to the revising committee. The revising committee after viewing the movie refused the certification vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. The main ground that has been taken in the present appeal has been succinctly captured by this Court while entertaining this appeal on 18.06.2026 and the same is extracted hereunder:- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that whenever the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 9 Revising Committee refuses to certify a film, it must state its reasons and provide specific details regarding the objectionable portions, dialogues or scenes. Such disclosure is necessary to enable the appellant to either re-submit the film with modifications or prefer an appeal. In the present case, the Revising Committee failed to provide these specific particulars although, the Committee is mandated to supply these details in accordance with Form VIII to allow the appellant to make the requisite modifications. 2. Notice to the respondents, returnable by 24.06.2026. Private notice is also permitted. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant is also permitted to take notice on the office of the learned Additional Solicitor General. 4. Post the matter on 24.06.2026. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:- 15. I submit that after examining the content and as per the guidelines issued under Cinematograph Act and Rules; (i) The 2nd revising committee may recommend grant of certificate with or without any modifications. (ii) The 2nd revising committee may recommend “Refusal” of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 9 certificate 16. It is submitted that it is true that the Examining Committee as well as the revising committee did not communicate any particular scene, dialogue, visuals etc. which violated the guidelines. In the Examining Committee, three members recommended “A” certificate with modifications and one member and examining officer recommended “UA 16+” Certificate with modifications. As there was difference of opinion in the Examining committee with regard to classification as well as modifications, the committee could not communicate the modifications to the Applicant. The Revising Committee did not list out the modifications to the Applicant, as it recommended “refusal” of certificate since the revising committee was of the opinion that while the film was judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact, the whole film was contemptuous of religious, other groups and promotes communal and anti national attitudes. 17. It is further submitted that as per Section 4 (2) (iv) the appellant will be directed to carry out such excisions or modifications in the film as it may deem necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition under various categories. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 9 In case of “refusal”, only the reasons for “refusal” will be intimated to the applicant and the reasons for “refusal” will be intimated to the applicant in clear terms. It is reiterated that both the examining committee as well as the revising committees made their recommendations, as per the guidelines issued under Cinematograph Act and Rules. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents and carefully considered the materials available on record. 6. A careful reading of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent makes it clear that the certification was rejected by assigning the following reasons :- The film is evaluated in its overall aspect. The film in is entirety is contemptuous of religious, other groups and promotes communal and anti national attitudes thereby violating guidelines 2(xii) and 2(xiii) of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 2024. Hence, the RC unanimously recommended “Refusal” of certificate to the film. 7. In view of the above, a ground has been taken by the appellant to the effect that a movie cannot be rejected in Toto and if at all there are any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 9 objectionable portions / dialogues that has to be informed to the producer so that necessary modifications can be made and the movie can be resubmitted. 8. The reason for the refusal of certificate to the film is brought out under Paragraph 16 of the Counter affidavit. It is seen that three members had recommended “A” Certificate with modifications and one member and the examining officer recommended “UA 16+” certificate with modifications. Ultimately, the revising committee recommended for the refusal of the certificate. 9. It is also seen from the materials placed before this Court that the respondents have decided to refer the film to the Second Revising Committee for examination. This is in view of such a power available under proviso to Sub Rule 13 to Rule 25 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The proviso makes it clear that where there is disagreement with the decision of the majority of the committee by the Chair person, the board itself can examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee. This power has now been exercised and it is made clear that the movie will now be examined by a Revising Committee consisting of members who did not form part of the earlier committee. 10. In the light of the above development, this Court deems it fit to fix https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 9 a time frame for the Second Revising Committee to examine the film and take a decision and convey the same to the appellant. Already the communication has been sent to the appellant in this regard on 12.06.2026. The appellant shall comply with the requirements of the notice dated 12.06.2026 within a period of one week from today. On receipt of the necessary particulars / documents, the Revising Committee shall proceed further to examine the film and the decision shall be conveyed to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the necessary particulars / documents from the appellant. 11. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA Issue order copy on 28.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 9 To 1. The Chairperson Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 2. The Regional Officer Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 3. Revising Committee Central Board of Film Certification 35 - Haddows Road Shastri Bhavan Chennai 006 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 1852 of 2026 __________ Page9 of 9 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CMA No. 1852 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 14884 OF 2026 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis