Cooli HONOURABLE COURT HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT CHENNAI (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) C.M.A.NO. OF 2025 Against CA032607202500031 (Passed by the Central Board of Film Certification) Sun TV Network Ltd. Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.M.Jyothibasu Murasoli Maran Towers 73 MRC Nagar Main Road MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
(Under Section.104 and Order 43 of CPC)
IN THE HONOURABLE COURT HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT CHENNAI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
C.M.A.NO. OF 2025
Against
CA032607202500031
(Passed by the Central Board of Film Certification)
Sun TV Network Ltd.
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.M.Jyothibasu
Murasoli Maran Towers
73 MRC Nagar Main Road
MRC Nagar,
Chennai – 600 028 – Appellant
Vs
Central Board of Film Certification
By its Regional Officer
Shastri Bhawan
Subba Road Avenue
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006 -Respondent
Sun TV Network Ltd. Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.M.Jyothibasu, Murasoli Maran Towers, 73 MRC Nagar Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028 is the Appellant herein.
The address for service of all notice and process of the Appellant is that of his counsels M/s.M.Sneha, M.A.Vimal Mohan, V.Dinesh Raja and V.Rani at No.299, Law Chambers, High Court,Chennai-600 104.
Central Board of Film Certification, by its Regional Officer, Shastri BhawanSubba Road Avenue, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006 is the Respondent herein.
The address for service of his notice and process of the Respondent is as stated above.
The Appellant begs to prefer the present Civil Miscellaneous appeal against the order passed by the respondent dated 04.08.2025 in CA032607202500031 on the following amongst other grounds
Brief Facts
1. The appellant is a leading Television Network in South India. Sun T.V is one of its channels and is the No.1 channel in Tamil Nadu when it comes to viewership. Apart from this, the appellant runs other channels in Tamil viz., K TV, Sun Music, Sun News, Adithya TV, Chutti TV which are all leading channels in their respective fields. The appellant is in business for several years and has received several competitive awards and enjoys high reputation amongst the viewers. The appellant company is also involved in the production and distribution of movies and in this field also it has earned great reputation and emerged as one of the best.
2. The appellant submits that in the field of production it is a reputed production house (Sun Pictures – a Division of Sun TV Network Ltd) and film studio involved in the business of production, acquisition, co-production, promotion, marketing and distribution of various cinematographic films and audio-visual content in various Indian languages, in multiple formats worldwide including but not limited to; theatrical, television syndication, digital and Internet connected platforms. So far the appellant has produced about 29 movies in its own banner besides obtaining copyright of several movies in all languages for Satellite exploitation and other media exploitations from its original copyright holders. Some of the well-known motion pictures produced and/or distributed by the Plaintiff include the movie Enthiran, Vettaikaran, Kutti Pulli Kanchana-3, Kanchana-2, Inga Enna Solluthu, Kutti Puli, Vedi, Mankatha, Sarkar, Petta, Beast, Annathe, Jailer.
3. The appellant submits that, it had produced the movie Coolie” celebrating Super Star Rajinikanth five decades in the film industry, which is a mega block buster starring apart from the superstar, Nagarjuna, Aamir Khan and others. This movie being the celebration of the Super Star’s 50 years in the film industry and produced by the appellant expectations of the general public were very high. People of not only Tamil Nadu but all over the world, men, women and children were eagerly waiting for the release of the same.
4. The appellant submits that, as mandated by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) the appellant had applied for certification on 28.07.2025 as per Rule 22 of Cinematography (Certification) Rules 1983. After the evaluation of the movie by the Examining Committee, the Board on 31.07.2025 had sent an email stating that the said movie will be certified for adults movie provided certain cuts are made on the ground that frequent and extensive violence through ought the movie and the movie depicts celebrating killing. Shocked by the same, the appellant had requested for the Revising Committee as per Rule 25 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983.The Revising Committee also granted “A” certificate on 04.08.2025 for the reasons that contents portray frequent and extensive violence. Since the movie was scheduled to be released on the 14th of August the appellants, theatres were booked worldwide across the globe.
5. The appellant submits that, when compared to several movies like KGF, Beast and others, the present movie does not depict violence like those movies. The respondent for reasons best known had issued “A” certificate while more violent movies have been issued with “U/A” certificates. The public at large also endorse the same view. With no other alternative, since the appellate tribunal has been abolished, the present appeal is filed, amongst various other grounds
GROUNDS
(i) THAT the order of the revising committee of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and against Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
(ii) THAT the said order is purely discriminatory. When contents of movies like KGF and beast are loaded with raw violence and gory killings, was issued with “U/A” certificate, the present movie which has minimal violence.
(iii) THAT the said movie nowhere glorifies drinking or killing and the act of drinking and killing runs within the story and is not depicted as glorifying the same.
(iv) THAT the said movie nowhere degrades women or children and there are no scenes depicting sexual violence against women or children.
(v) THAT the violence and killing scene blend with a movie and does not stand out so as to glorify the same.
THAT the reasons of the revising committee is different from that of the examining committee, but the revising committee for reasons best known in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner decided to issue an A certificate
(vi) THAT the respondent failed to consider the notification of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting dated 60.12.1991 while issuing the said certificate
(vii) THAT the respondent failed to consider the fact that out of the total duration of 02 hours 50 minutes and 20 seconds (02:50:20) of the movie, normal violence scenes is only 05 minutes and that the same cannot be terminated as ‘frequent and extensive violence.
(viii) THAT the respondents do not have unfettered rights or domain over the issuance of the certificate and the said certificate ought to be within the legal framework, guidelines and rights guaranteed under the Constitution
(ix) THAT the respondent failed to consider the fact that, the said movie is depicting the life of a coolie and how they are exploited. That being so, the respondent citing sustained portrayal of smoking and drinking as one of the reasons cannot be sustained.
(x) THAT the same respondent had rightly issued U/A certificate to a movie name KGF, which depicts violence and scariness, blood, torture and gore throughout the movie. The respondent had considered the contents as a whole and issued the same, whereas for reasons best known for the subject movie the respondent had isolated the contents with the violence and arbitrarily issued “A” certificate.
(xi) THAT the respondent having considered the contents as a whole had rightly issued films with violence loaded a certificate of U/A Nani’s superhit Telugu film Dasara (2023) has a shot of a man being beheaded while riding his cycle, and Upendra’s Kannada film Kabzaa (2023) – clearly modeled on KGF – has multiple beheadings and shots of people being buried alive and then getting shot. In Vikram, the decapitated body of a woman is shown, and in Jailer, the villain’s preferred method of killing people is to lower them in vats of sulfuric acid. The climax of King of Kotha is a lengthy bloodbath where Dulquer Salmaan’s character kills multiple people, including slamming a knife through a man’s head and forcing it out of the back of his head. All these films are rightly rated U/A viewing the contents as a whole and not in isolation. But for reasons best known the respondent in the subject matter had failed to view it as a whole but rather chose to view it in isolation and away from the entire content, which is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.
(xii) THAT the Revising Committee had simply endorsed the views of the Examining Committee and had failed to view the contents of the movie in entirety.
(xiii) THAT the respondent ought to have followed the same yardstick followed for the movies KGF both 1 & 2, Pushpa, Beast and others and ought to have issued U/A certificate for the movie Coolie also.
(xiv) THAT the order of the respondent is discriminatory and arbitrary and against the rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
6. The appellant crave leave to this Hon’ble court to raise additional grounds at a later point of time if needed.
It is respectfully pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the respondent dated 04.08.2025 in CA032607202500031 issuing “A” certificate and direct the respondent to issue U/A certificate for the movie ‘Coolie” and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai this the 19th day of August 2025
Counsel for the Appellant
MEMO OF VALUATION
Value of the Application : Rs. 1,09563/-
Fee paid : Rs. 1,09563/-
Value of the Review Petition: Incapable /-
Fee paid : Rs.36521/-
Value of the CMA : Incapable
Court fee paid : Rs1, 500/-
Dated at Chennai this the 19th day of August 2025
Counsel for the Appellant
