Barely two years after the Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) introduced its Tatkaal certification facility to fast-track film clearances, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has abolished the mechanism. Now, several producers’ bodies are seeking its return in a restricted form, arguing that an emergency certification route remains essential for films facing unforeseen delays.

According to CBFC insiders, discussions are underway among guilds, producers’ associations, and trade stakeholders to persuade the ministry to retain the provision for exceptional circumstances rather than scrap it entirely.

“The consensus is that the scheme was being misused, but that doesn’t mean it should disappear completely. There are genuine situations where a producer has no control over delays and needs an expedited certification route,” a CBFC insider told mid-day.

Stakeholders insist they are not seeking a return to the earlier system, under which Tatkaal applications became increasingly common. Instead, they want a limited provision that can be invoked in cases involving court litigation, delayed post-production work, certification disputes, and other last-minute contingencies.

Industry insiders point to recent examples. Earlier this year, Parasakthi received its censor certificate just a day before release after scrutiny by a Revising Committee. Jana Nayagan also became the subject of legal proceedings over alleged certification delays before the Madras High Court directed the issuance of a certificate. While neither case involved the Tatkaal mechanism directly, certification issues can escalate dangerously close to release.

“Nobody plans to submit a film late,” said a producer associated with a leading industry body. “But visual effects get delayed, revising committees ask for modifications. In such situations, an emergency certification window becomes a necessity.” With the Tatkaal facility gone, certification would take around 22 to 48 days.

The Tatkaal scheme allowed producers to fast-track certification by paying three times the standard examination fee. The Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA) opposed the additional cost, with president Abhay Sinha arguing that smaller and regional producers were being pushed into an expensive process to secure timely certification. IMPPA instead proposed a capped emergency quota system requiring documented proof and approval from senior CBFC officials.

Chennai: Actor and TVK founder Vijay ’s movie ‘Jana Nayagan’ will not get a Pongal release as a division bench of Madras High Court on Friday stayed an order passed by a single judge earlier in the day directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a censor certificate to the film forthwith.

The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan granted the interim stay on an appeal moved by the CBFC immediately after the single judge passed the order.

The bench observed that CBFC was not granted sufficient time to respond to plea moved by KVN Productions LLP, which produced the movie. It also noted that CBFC’s directive referring the film to the revising committee was quashed by the single judge, while the same was not challenged by the producer.

The bench remarked that the producer was creating urgency and putting pressure on the court after announcing the release date even before obtaining the censor certificate. “How can you go ahead with the release of the film without even getting a certificate on hand? You cannot fix a date for release and put pressure on the system,” it said.

“Though the producer submitted that the order was passed by the single judge in extreme urgency, as the film was scheduled to be screened on Jan 9, we are not impressed by the submission because it is an admitted position on record that no certification was actually granted in favour of the producer,” the court said.

Representing CBFC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the single judge cannot order a relief that was not sought. The referral order of the CBFC chairperson to the revising committee was not challenged. Yet the single judge quashed it, he said.

Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the producer, said it was shocking that a member of CBFC committee that reviewed the film filed a complaint against granting a certificate to the movie.

---------------------------------

After the Madras High Court on Friday initially ruled in favour of the makers of Jana Nayagan and directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a U/A 16+ certificate for the Vijay-starrer, the CBFC appealed the decision, seeking a fresh review. Following the appeal, the court temporarily stayed its order, observing that the producers had attempted to create a false sense of urgency around the film’s release, thereby putting pressure on the court, as reported by Live Law. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 21.

Justice PT Asha had earlier passed the order after hearing arguments from both sides, clearing a major hurdle that had led to the film’s last-minute postponement. However, minutes after the judge pronounced her verdict, the CBFC, through its counsel, additional solicitor general ARL Sundaresan, approached a bench led by Chief Justice MM Srivastava, seeking an urgent hearing on the challenge to the order.

Widely publicized as Vijay’s final film before he contests in the Tamil Nadu elections this year, Jana Nayagan was originally slated for release on January 9. An examining committee of the CBFC had initially recommended a U/A 16 certificate, subject to certain cuts, which were duly implemented by the filmmakers. However, the film was later referred to a revising committee following a complaint that raised objections to the portrayal of defence forces and scenes allegedly hurting religious sentiments. HTC

---------------------------------------------

India’s largest ticket refund; makers return around Rs. 1 crore

---------------------------------------------

The delay in certification led the makers to postpone the film’s release just two days before the original date of January 9. With advance booking already open, the film’s makers and ticketing platforms began a refund process for over 4,50,000 tickets, costing an estimated Rs. 1 crore in India alone. 

Chennai: Observing that poor people buying half a litre and one litre petrol for their two-wheelers are not seeking exemptions, the Madras High Court on Thursday censured actor Dhanush for failing to pay entry tax for his Rolls Royce car, imported from the United Kingdom, since 2015 even after the issue was settled by the SC in 2018. Justice S M Subramaniam directed him to pay Rs 30.3 lakh tax due within 48 hours.

On July 13, the court had made certain observations against actor Vijay for challenging entry tax demand for a Rolls Royce Ghost. The observations were later stayed by a division bench. Suresh Kumar K reports.

“Crores of poor and middle-class people of this great nation are purchasing half a litre and one litre petrol for their low-end two-wheelers and they are not choosing to file cases seeking exemptions. While so, citizens enjoying a reputation for importing the most prestigious and luxury cars are expected to pay entry tax to the state, as they are going to be driven on the roads established by the state. Roads are laid from and out of the taxpayers' money,” said Justice S M Subramaniam.

On Thursday, counsel for Dhanush sought the court’s permission to withdraw the case. He said Dhanush had already paid 50% of the tax and that he was willing to pay the rest now.

Refusing to allow Dhanush to withdraw the plea, Justice Subramaniam said the petition had been pending since 2015.

“If your intentions are genuine, you should have paid the tax at least after the Supreme Court had settled the issue in 2018. But now, after the high court listed the matter for passing orders, you are seeking to withdraw,” the judge said.

Noting that Dhanush was right in arguing that claiming such exemption was his right, the court said, “However, while dealing with the rights of the citizen, constitutional courts are bound to remind the duties of the citizen under the Constitution.

When the duties are reminded upon to citizens, they cannot make a complaint that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction by unnecessarily penning down certain points.”

“Constitutional courts are not functioning to simply resolve the disputes by saying 1+1=2. Beyond resolving the issues between the parties, the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 is bound to be exercised by the high court, whenever an occasion comes for the development and march of law,” Justice Subramaniam said.

“Wonderful ideas, ideologies, theories, doctrines in numerous judgments by way of ‘Obiter dicta’ (expression of opinion by judges) became the law of this great nation and contributed to the development of our democracy,” the court asserted.

It was recently announced that the critically acclaimed Tamil film Soorarai Pottru, which featured South star Suriya, will be remade in Hindi. The Tamil movie, which was released in November 2020 on a digital platform, was inspired by the life of Captain G R Gopinath, founder of Air Deccan and pioneer of low-cost aviation in India. Now, BT has learnt that the Madras High Court has directed a stay on the recently announced Hindi remake. An injunction restraining Suriya’s 2D Entertainment from exploiting the Hindi rights of the film based on the book Simply Fly — A Deccan Odyssey authored by Captain G R Gopinath has been issued.

The original film in Tamil was made by Guneet Monga’s Sikhya Entertainment and Suriya’s 2D Entertainment. Sikhya Entertainment had approached the Madras High Court against the latter over the rights of the film, including the remake in Hindi. Earlier this month, Abundantia Entertainment, known for backing prominent films like Sherni, Shakuntala Devi, Airlift and Toilet - Ek Prem Katha, had announced that they would be collaborating with 2D Entertainment for the Hindi remake of Soorarai Pottru.

On probing why Sikhya Entertainment approached the Madras High Court, a source informed us, “Sikhya Entertainment and 2D Entertainment had made Soorarai Pottru together, and they were supposed to make the Hindi film together, too. However, apparently, 2D Entertainment selling the rights to Abundantia Entertainment without Sikhya’s consent and not fulfiling obligations under the original agreement between them led to Sikhya making the move.”

Ashish Joseph (BOMBAY TIMES; September 13, 2020)

The income tax department has moved the Madras High Court against Oscar-winning music composer A R Rahman, alleging that he had diverted a payment made to him by a UK company to the A R Rahman Foundation to evade tax payment.

WHAT’S THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT’S CONTENTION?
Senior standing counsel for the income tax department, T R Senthil Kumar explains, “He had entered into a three-year agreement with a UK-based company to compose ringtone for them, for which an amount of more than Rs. 3 crore was agreed to be paid. He said the amount could be sent to his foundation. For a trust, if it fulfills some conditions, all its income will be exempted from tax under Section 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act 1961. By routing full money to the trust, he doesn’t want to pay tax. If the same amount had come directly to him, after paying the tax, he could have used the balance amount as he wished. That’s what the law says. The creation of music is with his individual skills.”

Senior standing counsel for the income tax department, T R Senthil Kumar, says, “It is in no way connected with the foundation, (though) he happens to be its managing trustee. So, when it is offered to the foundation, without the permission of the central government, it’s a violation under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. This is the contention of the department — the income made under individual capacity shouldn’t be diverted to the foundation, and is to be assessed as taxable.”

THE COURSE OF THE CASE
Ask him why it took this long for the matter to come before the High Court, he says, “This comes under the assessment year 2011-12 and is the third level of appeal. The assessment takes two years to complete. Then, the first level of appeal is to the commissioner, second to the tribunal, third to the High Court, and the fourth to the Supreme Court. Normally, it takes this long. Now, the appeal has been admitted by the court and Rahman’s advocate has taken the notice on his behalf. In the next hearing, he will come back and explain Rahman’s version.” The next hearing in the case will be on November 18.

‘WILL OFFER FULL SUPPORT’
In a statement, Rahman’s management said, “The receipt of funds has already been offered to tax in the hands of the A R Rahman Foundation, which was appreciated by the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, while it adjudicated the matter in favour of Mr A R Rahman. We will continue to offer our full support and cooperation. May justice prevail (sic).”

— With inputs from PTI

Janani Karthik (BOMBAY TIMES; April 22, 2017)