Chennai: In a significant setback to the makers of Vijay-starrer ‘Jana Nayagan’, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed an appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside a single-judge direction that had ordered the immediate grant of censor certification to the film.
The Bench held that the earlier order could not be sustained as it ventured into the merits of the dispute at an interim stage.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan, observed that a writ court, while considering an interlocutory plea, ought not to have examined the substance of the complaints raised against the film’s content.
Holding that the approach adopted by the single judge was legally flawed, the Bench allowed the CBFC’s appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The court also granted liberty to the writ petitioner to amend the petition, a move that is expected to further delay the film’s theatrical release.
The Bench recalled that it had already stayed the single-judge order on January 9 after noting that the Union government had not been granted sufficient time to file its response. Subsequently, on January 15, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by the producer challenging the Division Bench’s interim stay and the delay in the issuance of the final censor certificate.
‘Jana Nayagan’, projected as actor Vijay’s final film before his full-time foray into politics, was slated for a January 9 release, coinciding with the Pongal festival. The producer, KVN Productions, had approached the High Court alleging unreasonable delay by the CBFC despite compliance with all modifications suggested by the Examining Committee.
According to the producers, the application for certification was submitted on December 18, 2025. Following a personal hearing, the Examining Committee, through a communication dated December 22, 2025, recommended certification under the ‘UA 16+’ category, citing violence, fight sequences, gory visuals and brief references to religious sentiments.
Certain excisions and modifications were directed, which the producers claimed were fully implemented, and a revised version of the film was resubmitted on December 24. The modifications were verified on December 29, after which the producers were informed that the ‘UA 16+’ certificate would be granted.
However, an email dated January 5, 2026, informed them that the film had been referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, based on a complaint alleging improper portrayal of defence forces and possible hurt to religious sentiments. It later emerged that the complaint had been made by a member of the Examining Committee itself, triggering the legal dispute. The CBFC was represented in the appeal by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan.
(IANS)
