Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Revocation of UA Certificate for Rajinikanth’s Jailer
In a recent development, the Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought the revocation of the UA (Universal Adult) certificate issued to the movie Jailer, starring Rajinikanth. The court chose to withdraw the case after considering the significant time that had passed since the movie’s release, during which thousands of children could have already watched it.
The petitioner, M.L. Ravi, had raised concerns over the violent scenes depicted in the film, arguing that they were unsuitable for children. He questioned how the film received a UA certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) when it had been classified as Adults only (A) in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The decision to dismiss the PIL came after the court bench, consisting of Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu, questioned the purpose of the case after a fortnight had passed since the movie’s release. They noted that a large number of children would have already viewed the film during this time.
While the court dismissed the petition, it is important to recognize that the issue of appropriate certification for films remains a topic of discussion and debate. The Central Board of Film Certification faces the task of striking a balance between artistic expression and societal concerns, ensuring that movies reach their intended audiences while taking into account the age-appropriateness of the content.
The decision to grant a UA certificate to Jailer might have been influenced by factors such as the portrayal of violence within permissible limits and the inclusion of parental guidance. However, the petitioner’s argument regarding the film’s classification in other countries certainly raises valid questions.
It is worth noting that the CBFC adheres to certain guidelines and rating systems when determining the appropriate certification for a movie. These guidelines consider factors such as violence, nudity, language, and themes depicted in the film. The aim is to provide audiences with a clear understanding of the content and help parents make informed decisions about what is suitable for their children to watch.
While the dismissal of the PIL paints a different picture, the concerns raised by the petitioner shed light on the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the certification process. This includes reviewing the criteria used by the CBFC and considering international standards to maintain consistency and address any discrepancies.
As the audience for movies continues to diversify and expand, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that films are accurately certified to protect vulnerable viewers, particularly children. The discussion prompted by this PIL not only highlights the need for a robust certification framework but also emphasizes the role of parental guidance in determining what is appropriate for young audiences.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court dismissed the PIL seeking the revocation of the UA certificate granted to Rajinikanth’s Jailer. While the court’s decision focused on the timing of the case, it is crucial to reflect upon the concerns brought forth by the petitioner regarding the movie’s content and its certification in comparison to other countries. This debate calls for a closer examination of the certification process and a reevaluation of the guidelines followed by the CBFC to ensure that films are classified accurately, allowing viewers to make informed choices.
