After Watching Movie, Madras High Court Asks Director Vetri Maaran To Make Certain Modifications In 'Manushi'

Justice Anand Venkatesh, who had earlier decided to watch the movie, said that the exercise had to be done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality and to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures.

The court, however, asked the members of the Central Board of Film Certification to deal with matters of artistic freedom broadly.

“The aforesaid exercise has been done keeping in mind the principles of proportionality thereby ensuring that artistic freedom is not unduly curtailed on surmises and conjectures. Ultimately the Court must balance two competing interests, the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the legitimate state interest in censorship. The Censor Board and its committees must nevertheless exhibit a sense of broadmindedness when it comes to matters of artistic freedom for as Justice Jackson pointed out in American Communications Assn. v. Douds,” the court said.

Vetri Maaran had approached the court to quash the recommendations made by the Revising Committee, suggesting around 37 excisions/modifications in the movie. He had previously approached the court challenging the CBFC's refusal to certify the movie. CBFC had then informed the court that it would certify the movie if the objectionable content was removed.

Though an objection was raised with respect to the suggestions of the CBFC, since it could not be gone into in the earlier plea, the court had given liberty to Vetri Maaran to challenge the same in the manner known to law. Thus, he had filed the present plea.

The judge had earlier decided to watch the movie in a special Sunday screening to satisfy itself on the justification for insisting that objectionable portions be removed from the movie.

After watching the movie, the court remarked that it was a poignant cinematic reflection on how ordinary lives could be torn apart when systematic prejudices and state machinery collide in moments of political suspicion. The court added that the movie had masterfully explored the dark underbelly of power, exposing how instruments of law and order, when driven by assumption and pressure, could silence reason and trample upon justice.

The court added that the case was an instance which questioned the limits of censorship of motion pictures and the resultant tension between the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and the constitutionally permissible restriction that the State could impose under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court observed that the censorship, in the present case, is to pursue a legitimate aim. The court noted that, as per the KS Puttaswamy judgment (2017), a proportional action was one where the action was sanctioned by law, was necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim, the interference must be proportional to the need of such interference and there must be procedural guarantees against the abuse of such interference.

In the present case, the court opined that the first, second and fourth limb in the test of proportionality had been satisfied and the issue was whether the action taken was proportional.

Holding that the modifications suggested by the Bard was proportional to the legitimate state interest, the court directed Maaran to carry out the modifications. The court rendered its own findings on the 37 modifications/excisions suggested by the Board and agreed/partially agreed with 14 suggestions. With respect to the other suggestions, the court found that no excision/modification was necessary, considering the theme of the movie. 

The court further asked Maaran to resubmit the movie for censorship after carrying out the modification and directed the Board to certify the movie within 2 weeks of such resubmission.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.B.M.Subash

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Kumaraguru Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: Vetri Maaran v. The Chairman and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Case No: WP No. 31016 of 2025