High court allows CBFC nod for Vijay film, another bench recalls it
The certification would have paved the way for the theatrical release of a film widely seen as the swan song of Vijay, and believed to be thematically related to the political messaging of his party
On a day of high drama, a division bench of the Madras high court on Friday stayed, within hours of a single judge clearing it, a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a UA certificate to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan.
The certification would have paved the way for the theatrical release of a film widely seen as the swan song of Vijay (the name by which the actor Joseph Vijay Chandrasekhar is known), and believed to be thematically related to the political messaging of his party.
While the film was originally slated for release on January 9, the producers had deferred it due to the ongoing litigation. The division bench’s intervention has now once again cast uncertainty over the film’s release.
On Friday morning, a single bench of justice PT Asha directed CBFC to grant a “UA 16+” certificate to the film, prompting the board to rush to the division bench of chief justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and justice Arul Murugan, asking for an urgent hearing on an appeal challenging the order.
Around 4.30pm, the division bench took the appeal for hearing and asked KVN Productions, the producers of the film, why they were in a rush to get the certification. It then said the matter required consideration and stayed the implementation of justice Asha’s order at least until January 21 this year, the next date of hearing.
The bench, led by CJ Shrivastava, also said that the producers had fixed a release date of 9 January despite not having a CBFC certificate, and asked if this were not a way to create “artificial pressure” on the courts.
The court took note of the submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union of India, that the Centre and CBFC were not given sufficient time to file a counter, and that the single judge set aside a letter from the CBFC chairperson, dated 6 January, without it being “specifically challenged or a writ of certiorari being sought”.
The Solicitor General and ASG ARL Sundaresan also argued that the single judge held CBFC’s decision to re-examine the film’s certification as invalid and went ahead to grant relief which the petitioners had not sought.
Such relief, Mehta said, cannot extend to quashing an unchallenged order and that doing so would undermine the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act.
Senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Satish Parasaran, who appeared for the producers, told the division bench that the film had earlier been recommended for an UA certificate subject to modifications by the examining committee of CBFC, but that one member of the same committee had then sought a review.
The chief justice’s bench held that there was no real urgency and that the producers could have waited for certification instead of fixing a release date. The bench then stayed the single judge’s order directing CBFC to grant a UA certificate to the film and posted the matter for further hearing on January 21, after the Pongal holidays.
Justice Asha, the single judge who reserved orders earlier this week on KVN’s plea and on Friday morning, set aside the CBFC chairperson’s decision to send the film for a fresh review, and directed the board to issue a “UA 16+” certificate forthwith.
She held that the CBFC chairperson acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification process after the examining committee cleared the film, subject to cuts and modifications.
The judge held that the complaint that triggered the review appeared to be an “afterthought” and warned that entertaining such complaints would “lead to a dangerous trend”.
The complainant alleged that Jana Nayagan had been certified without due procedure and contained content that could disturb “religious harmony” and improperly portrayed the armed forces.
He claimed his objections were ignored and sought a re-examination of the film before release.
The court, however, found that the complaint contradicted the complainant’s own signed form, where he had raised the same objections that were acted upon by the producers. It added that his claim of being denied an opportunity was “an afterthought” and that it appeared “motivated”.
“Further, such a volte face by a member of an examining committee who made a recommendation after viewing and assimilating the film would give rise to a dangerous trend of members reneging on their recommendation and the sanctity placed on the decision,” justice Asha said.
The court set aside the CBFC chairperson’s letter dated January 6, which ordered that the film be placed before a revising committee. It held that once the examining committee recommended certification and the producers carried out the suggested modifications, “the certificate ought to have followed automatically”.
“The exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction,” the court said, noting that the chairperson’s authority to send the film for review stood exhausted once the board informed the producers that a UA certificate would be granted subject to excisions.
The producers moved the high court earlier this week after CBFC referred the film to a revising committee just days before its scheduled January 9 release.
During previous hearings, justice Asha had questioned CBFC’s decision to reopen the process after the examining committee had cleared the film subject to cuts. The court had noted that the committee had suggested 27 excisions and modifications, including muting of certain words, and that the producers had accepted and implemented all of them.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for the producers, told the court that the modified version of the film was resubmitted on December 24, 2025. Despite this, CBFC stalled the issuance of the certificate and cited the complaint as the basis for referring the film for review. Parasaran said the delay caused severe financial loss, mental stress, and reputational harm, adding that the production house had invested nearly ₹500 crore and planned a worldwide release across 5,000 screens.
He had also argued that CBFC failed to disclose the identity of the complainant or the contents of the complaint.
Appearing for the CBFC, ASG Sundaresan argued that the chairperson was not bound by the examining committee’s recommendation and could order a review under the Cinematograph Certification Rules. He told the court that the complaint came from a member of the examining committee itself.
