JOIN USQuestioning the 'UA' certificate issued to Kamal Haasan's controversial film Vishwaroopam,Tamil Nadu government today alleged in the Madras High Court that certification of films itself was a "very big scam" and sought a probe into it by a law enforcing agency.
Arguing before Justice K Venkataraman, Advocate General A Navaneethakrishnan said the "UA" certificate to Vishwaroopam was not issued by the Censor Board, but only by an Examining Committee not mandated by provisions of the Constitution.
Rejecting the charge, Additional Solicitor General Wilson said the certification was done by procedure. The application for certification came to the Censor Board on Oct 4, 2012, the film was viewed on Oct 8 and a show cause notice to cut certain scenes sent on October 10, he said.
The cuts were accepted and removed and the final certification given on October 17. Scenes to a running time of 1.08 minutes were cut, he said.
Even at a meeting with the Home Secretary on Dec 23 last, the Examining Officer said objectionable scenes were deleted from the film, Wilson said.
The judge is expected to pronounce his order tonight.
The Tamil Nadu government had banned the screening of the film in the face of opposition by some Muslim outfits, who claimed that the nearly Rs 100 crore movie portrayed their community in a negative light.
Chairperson of Censor Board Leela Samson told a TV channel that the government's charge was "absolutely unacceptable". Saying he was a 'honourable citizen', she said the ban was an "infringement of expression" of Kamal Hassan.
The AG contended that Tamil Nadu is a peaceful state and District Collectors had issued orders to theatre owners invoking Section 144 of CrPC to avoid any law and order situation which may endanger lives and cause damage to property.
P S Raman, arguing for the petitioner, said the Censor Board's certification was final, going by the provisions of the Constitution.
He said the Collectors order invoking Section 144 of CrPC to prevent screening of the movie was violative of the freedom of speech and expression.
He also contended that the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was a special law while the Code of Criminal Procedure was a general law. Hence, sections of the Cinematograph Act would prevail over the CrPC.
Meanwhile, the Madurai bench of the Madras High today directed the Additional Advocate
General to find out through officials including the Home secretary whether Haasan had actually any record to prove that Taliban commander Mullah Omar stayed for a year in Madurai and Coimbatore.
Justice R Subbiah asked the officials to file their explanation and posted the case for further hearing on February 4. The petitioner said officials should investigate and find out if the actor had actually any record.
The Judge was hearing the petition filed by one C Ezhilarasu of Karaikudi, who sought police protection to theatres for Vishwaroopam's release.
The petitioner charged that various Muslim outfits had sought to stay the release of the
film, though it had been cleared by the censor board. Such outfits were acting like extra-constitutional authorities even as the petition regarding the release of the film was pending before the High court, he said.
The established legal forums and authorities had been overlooked in this case and cinema goers were indirectly deprived of their fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, he said.
The groups had earlier forced censoring of "Thuppaki" and made the hero Vijay and his father apologise, he claimed and prayed for police protection for the release of the film as it had been cleared by the censor board.