E-Paper
Madras HC expresses concern over lack of time given to CBFC
CBFC argues Madras HC erred in directing UA16+ certification for Vijay's film, claiming it wasn't given a chance to respond before the ruling.
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) told the Madras high court on Tuesday that a single judge had erred in directing it to grant a UA16+ certificate to actor-turned-politician Vijay’s multi-crore film Jana Nayagan, arguing that the order was passed without giving the Board an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The CBFC made the arguments before a bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan that was hearing its appeal challenging a single bench’s January 6 order directing the board to grant certification to the film.
The bench led by the Chief Justice reserved orders after hearing both sides.
Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan said that Justice PT Asha, the single judge who heard the matter earlier this month, had proceeded to decide the case without allowing the Board to file a counter affidavit. He told the bench that he had pointed out at the time that the producers had not challenged the Board’s January 5 decision to refer the film for reconsideration and that even a prayer for mandamus required the CBFC to be given an opportunity to place its response on record.
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. “However, the court chose to decide the matter on the basis of the materials placed before it,” he submitted.
At the centre of the dispute is the CBFC’s decision in early January to divert the film to a Revising Committee just days before its planned January 9 Pongal release, citing a complaint raising concerns over “religious sentiments and the portrayal of the armed forces.” The producers have alleged that the move derailed a certification process that was nearing completion.
Challenging the single judge’s order, the CBFC maintained that its chairperson had acted within his statutory powers in referring the film for further review after receiving a complaint and that the Board had not yet taken a final decision on certification. Sundaresan said the producers were aware of the January 5 communication regarding the Revising Committee and could have challenged it, but did not. Despite this, he argued, the single judge went on to quash that decision without any express prayer for certiorari.
The CBFC also 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.
The producers, KVN Productions, through senior advocate Satish Parasaran, countered that by December 22 the Board had effectively accepted the examining committee’s recommendation and that only the issuance of the certificate remained. Parasaran told the court that the subsequent referral to a Revising Committee was sudden, disproportionate and jeopardised the film’s release plans.
The Chief Justice, however, questioned how a release date could be announced before a film received certification. Expressing concern over the procedure adopted, the bench observed that the CBFC had not been given even a day’s time to respond, warning that such an approach could set an unhealthy precedent. The court also rejected the producers’ submission that the matter was decided swiftly because there was no factual dispute, remarking that the urgency had been created by the producers themselves.
According to KVN Productions, Jana Nayagan was submitted to the CBFC on December 18, 2025, and had already undergone certification scrutiny when the referral to the Revising Committee triggered the present legal battle.
