ASG: We have two main points. First, we were not given enough time to file our reply. Second, the communication dated 6/1 was never questioned in Court. ASG then finished his arguments. The Court said it will hear the producers’ side after lunch. [20/01, 13:40] Sekarreporter: 👍

[20/01, 12:36] Sekarreporter: ஜனநாயகன் படத்தயாரிப்பு நிறுவனம் சார்பில் மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர்கள் சதீஸ் பராசரன், பிரதீப் ராய் ஆஜர் சென்சார் போர்டு சார்பில் கூடுதல் சொலிசிட்டர் ஜெனரல் ஆர்.எல்.சுந்தரேசன் ஆஜர் https://www.sekarreporter.com/%e0%ae%9c%e0%ae%a9%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%a9%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b0%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%81-%e0%ae%a8/
[20/01, 12:36] Sekarreporter: [20/01, 12:34] Sekarreporter: ஜனநாயகன் படம் வழக்கு விசாரணை தொடங்கியது
[20/01, 12:36] Sekarreporter: ஜனநாயகன் படத்தயாரிப்பு நிறுவனம் சார்பில் மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர்கள் சதீஸ் பராசரன், பிரதீப் ராய் ஆஜர் சென்சார் போர்டு சார்பில் கூடுதல் சொலிசிட்டர் ஜெனரல் ஆர்.எல்.சுந்தரேசன் ஆஜர் https://www.sekarreporter.com/%e0%ae%9c%e0%ae%a9%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%95%e0%ae%a9%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%a4%e0%ae%af%e0%ae%be%e0%ae%b0%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%81-%e0%ae%a8/
[20/01, 12:37] Sekarreporter: CJ is reading the order passed by the Supreme Court
[20/01, 12:38] Sekarreporter: [20/01, 12:37] Sekarreporter: CJ is reading the order passed by the Supreme Court
[20/01, 12:37] Sekarreporter: ASG says he will require 30 minutes to make his submissions. CJ agrees. He begins arguing the matter and makes submissions regarding the facts of the case.
[20/01, 12:45] Sekarreporter: ASG submits: However, the Court chose to proceed on the materials available, heard the matter, reserved orders and on 9/1/26 passed orders setting aside the decision.
[20/01, 12:46] Sekarreporter: CJ asked the counsels how much time they would need.

ASG A.R.L. Sundaresan (for CBFC) sought half an hour.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran (for KVN Productions) also sought half an hour.
[20/01, 12:47] Sekarreporter: ASG submits: The decision taken by the Examining Committee after viewing the film, recommending 14 cuts, was only an intermediary step and not a final decision.
[20/01, 12:50] Sekarreporter: ASG submits: When the matter was taken up, he pointed out that the 5/1 decision had not been challenged and that even for issuance of a mandamus, they ought to have been permitted to file a counter.
[20/01, 12:53] Sekarreporter: CJ asked where the decision originated, noting that the Regional Office is in Chennai.

ASG replied that the decision came from the Board in Bombay.
[20/01, 12:53] Sekarreporter: ASG explained that the recommendations are forwarded to the Board, which then decides whether to certify the film or not.

CJ: The body that sent the letter to the producers. Was it the Advisory Panel or the Board itself?

ASG: It was the Regional Office
[20/01, 12:54] Sekarreporter: ASG took the Court through the provisions of the Cinematograph Act detailing the powers and functions of the Regional Officer.

The Court said it only wanted to understand the statutory scheme.
[20/01, 12:57] Sekarreporter: CJ says, since the producers counsel, during the last hearing had argued that the Dec 22 communicaiton was from the board itself, his bench wants to know whether the board had watched the movie and sent the communicaiton. ASG says, the movie was watched only by the examining committee which is an advisory panel and not the board by itself.
[20/01, 12:59] Sekarreporter: CJ says, if the single judge had heard the matter at length, the issue as to whether the board itself had watched the movie or was it watched only by a delegating authority such as the examining committee, could have been examined.
[20/01, 13:00] Sekarreporter: தனி நீதிபதி இந்த வழக்கை நீண்ட நேரம் விசாரித்திருந்தால், திரைப்பட வாரியமே படத்தைப் பார்த்ததா அல்லது தேர்வுக் குழு போன்ற பிரதிநிதித்துவ அதிகாரம் கொண்ட ஒருவரால் மட்டுமே பார்க்கப்பட்டதா என்ற பிரச்சினையை ஆராய்ந்திருக்கலாம் என்று தலைமை நீதிபதி கூறுகிறார்
[20/01, 13:03] Sekarreporter: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Tamil YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s Plea To Unseal Office, Asks Him To Approach Magistrate |@1Simranbakshi #SupremeCourt @SavukkuOfficial #MadrasHighCourt #TamilNadu https://www.sekarreporter.com/supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-tamil-youtuber-savukku-shankars-plea-to-unseal-office-asks-him-to-approach-magistrate-1simranbakshi-supremecourt-savukkuofficial-madrashighcourt-tamilnadu/
[20/01, 13:07] Sekarreporter: Chief justice ? Jananayagan case https://www.sekarreporter.com/chief-justice-jananayagan-case/
[20/01, 13:11] Sekarreporter: CJ asked whether the recommendation, required to be sent within three weeks, was sent in this case.

ASG replied: Yes.

CJ then asked whether the Chairperson had taken a decision.

ASG responded: The issue is that the Chairperson has not taken a decision.
[20/01, 13:12] Sekarreporter: CJ observed: The key issue to be considered is whether the opposite side was given sufficient time and whether the matter could have been decided in one day.

Only if that question is answered in the affirmative would the Court go into the merits.
[20/01, 13:19] Sekarreporter: ASG: In this case, the producers fixed the release date first and then argued that granting more time would cause them loss, citing an investment of ₹500 crore.

ASG: They should not have decided the release date in advance.
[20/01, 13:19] Sekarreporter: ASG: In this case, the producers fixed the release date first and then argued that granting more time would cause them loss, citing an investment of ₹500 crore.

ASG: They should not have decided the release date in advance.
[20/01, 13:24] Sekarreporter: சான்றிதழ் வழங்குவது குறித்து இன்னும் முடிவு எடுக்கவில்லை!” – தணிக்கை வாரியம்
[20/01, 13:28] Sekarreporter: ASG says, if it is a bad case, a writ petition can be dismissed without giving notice to the respondent. However, if it is a good case, then the respondent must be given time to file a counter affidavit.
[20/01, 13:29] Sekarreporter: ASG says, what is not prayed for cannot be granted by the single judge. He also citing a recent judgement of the Supreme Court to buttress his submissions.
[20/01, 13:29] Sekarreporter: ASG is reading out a Supreme Court judgement on the effect of a petitioner not having challenged a decision of a statutory authority
[20/01, 13:39] Sekarreporter: ASG: We have two main points. First, we were not given enough time to file our reply. Second, the communication dated 6/1 was never questioned in Court.

ASG then finished his arguments.

The Court said it will hear the producers’ side after lunch.
[20/01, 13:40] Sekarreporter: [20/01, 13:39] Sekarreporter: ASG: We have two main points. First, we were not given enough time to file our reply. Second, the communication dated 6/1 was never questioned in Court.

ASG then finished his arguments.

The Court said it will hear the producers’ side after lunch.
[20/01, 13:40] Sekarreporter: 👍