The Madras high court on Tuesday set aside the January 9 single-bench order directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant actor-politician Vijay’s starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan UA16+ certification, further delaying its theatrical release.
A bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan said the single bench should, at the very least, have given the CBFC an opportunity and enough time to “file a counter-affidavit”. It ordered the single bench to hear the matter afresh.
KVN Productions, which has produced the film, maintained the CBFC chairperson acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification process after the Examining Committee had cleared the film, subject to cuts and modifications.
The CBFC moved the division bench challenging the January 9 order. It argued that Justice PT Asha, the single judge, erred in directing it to grant UA16+ certificate, which means a film is cleared for “unrestricted but with caution for children below 16 years old.” The CBFC added that the order was passed without giving it an adequate opportunity to be heard.
Additional solicitor general ARL Sundaresan, who appeared for the CBFC, argued that the single judge decided the case without allowing the board to file a counter-affidavit. He told the bench that he had pointed out that the producers had not challenged the CBFC’s January 5 decision to refer the film for reconsideration. Sundaresan said even a prayer for mandamus required the CBFC to be allowed to place its response on record.
{{/usCountry}}Additional solicitor general ARL Sundaresan, who appeared for the CBFC, argued that the single judge decided the case without allowing the board to file a counter-affidavit. He told the bench that he had pointed out that the producers had not challenged the CBFC’s January 5 decision to refer the film for reconsideration. Sundaresan said even a prayer for mandamus required the CBFC to be allowed to place its response on record.
{{/usCountry}}Sundaresan argued that the December 22 communication from the Examining Committee, which recommended a U/A 16+ certificate subject to 14 cuts, was only an intermediary step and not a final statutory decision under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules. The single judge decided the matter based on the material placed before it, he submitted.
The CBFC, in early January, referred the film to a Revising Committee days before its planned January 9 Pongal release, citing a complaint about “religious sentiments and the portrayal of the armed forces.” The film producers alleged that the move derailed a certification process nearing completion.
The CBFC challenged the single judge’s order, arguing its chairperson acted within his statutory powers in referring the film for further review after receiving a complaint. It maintained it had not taken a final certification decision. Sundaresan said the producers were aware of the January 5 communication regarding the Revising Committee and could have challenged it, but did not. He argued that despite this, the single judge quashed that decision without any express prayer for certiorari.
The CBFC said that the single judge did not grant it even minimal time to respond, effectively deciding a complex statutory issue within a single day of hearing.
KVN Productions, through senior advocate Satish Parasaran, maintained that by December 22, the CBFC had effectively accepted the Examining Committee’s recommendation and that only the certificate issuance remained. Parasaran told the court that the subsequent referral to a Revising Committee was sudden, disproportionate, and jeopardised the film’s release plans.
KVN Productions said Jana Nayagan was submitted to the CBFC on December 18, 2025, and had undergone certification scrutiny when the referral to the Revising Committee triggered the present legal battle.
On January 20, the bench of Chief Justice Shrivastava and Justice Murugan questioned how a release date could be announced before a film received certification.