HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026 1.Central Board of Film Certification Films Division Complex,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026
1.Central Board of Film Certification
Films Division Complex,
Phase-I Building, 9th Floor, G.Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026.
2.The Regional Officer
Central Board of Film Certification,
No.35, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
Appellants
Vs
KVN Productions LLP
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Venkata Narayana Konanki
Door No.9, Ranjit Road,
Kotturpuram, Adayar, K.B.Dasan Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 020.
Respondent
For Appellants: Mr.Tushar Mehta
Solicitor General of India (through Video Conferencing) and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
Sr. Panel Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.Mukul Rohatgi
Senior Counsel
(through Video Conferencing) and Mr.Sathish Parasaran Senior Counsel
for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India (through Video Conferencing) and Shri .AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri A.R.Sakthivel, learned Senior Panel Counsel, for the appellants and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel (through Video Conferencing) and Shri Sathish Parasan, learned Senior Counsel for Shri Vijayan Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondent, on the prayer for stay.
2. What appears prima facie is that the writ petition was filed on
06.01.2026 and the appellants were not granted sufficient opportunity to file any reply and the main case itself was taken up on 07.01.2026.
3. One of the main grievances ventilated by the appellants is that they have not been given proper opportunity even to file their reply.
The other submission is that the order dated 06.01.2026 has been set aside, which was not even called into question seeking issuance of writ of certiorari, but the learned Single Judge, while entertaining the prayer for mandamus, has quashed the order which was not under challenge.
4. Though learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge in extreme urgency, as the movie was scheduled to be screened on 09.01.2026, we are not impressed by the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, because it is an admitted position on record that no certification was actually granted in favour of the respondent.
5. In that view of the matter, there shall be an order of interim stay of the effect and operation of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge.
List on 20.01.2026, as agreed to between the counsel for the parties, for final disposal.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
09.01.2026
bbr