The Madras High Court on Friday stepped in to halt the immediate effect of a single judge’s order in a dispute involving the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and film producer KVN Productions LLP. The Division Bench found that the censor board had not been given enough time to respond before the earlier order was passed.
The case was heard a day before the film was scheduled for release, giving the courtroom proceedings a clear sense of urgency.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Dumpers, Excavators Not ‘Motor Vehicles’; Gujarat Road Tax Demand Quashed
Background of the Case
The dispute began when KVN Productions approached the High Court seeking relief related to film certification. A writ petition was filed on 6 January 2026, and the matter was taken up almost immediately by a single judge the very next day.
The single judge’s order set aside an earlier decision dated 6 January 2026, even though that order was not directly challenged in the writ petition. The CBFC argued that it had no real opportunity to file a reply or place its stand on record before the case was decided.
Challenging this, the CBFC moved the Division Bench through an appeal, along with a plea for interim stay.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
Appearing for the CBFC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the entire process before the single judge moved at a pace that left the censor board unheard. He stressed that natural justice requires at least a minimal opportunity to respond.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sathish Parasaran, representing the producer, countered that the situation was extremely urgent as the film was scheduled to be screened on 9 January 2026. According to them, the single judge acted to prevent irreparable harm to the producer.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench, headed by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, was not persuaded by the urgency argument.
The bench noted that the writ petition was filed on 6 January and taken up for final consideration the very next day. “Prima facie, the appellants were not granted sufficient opportunity to file any reply,” the court observed.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
The judges also flagged a more serious issue: the single judge had set aside an order that was never specifically challenged in the petition. The bench remarked that while the prayer before the single judge was for a direction (mandamus), the order under challenge had been quashed without being questioned directly.
Another key factor weighed heavily with the court. It was an admitted position that no certification had actually been granted in favour of the producer. In that light, the bench said it was not convinced that the extreme urgency claimed by the respondent justified bypassing procedural fairness.
The Decision
Taking these factors together, the Division Bench ordered an interim stay on the “effect and operation” of the single judge’s order. This means that, for now, the earlier relief granted to the producer will not operate.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
“The effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the bench directed, while listing the matter for final disposal on 20 January 2026, with the consent of both sides.
The ruling restores the status quo until the appeal is heard in full and ensures that the CBFC gets an opportunity to present its case before any final decision is taken. Central Board of Film Certifica…
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification vs KVN Productions LLP
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 821 of 2026 in W.A. No. 94 of 2026
Case Type: Writ Appeal – Interim Stay
Decision Date: 09 January 2026
