The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) told the Madras High Court on Tuesday that a single judge erred in directing it to grant a “UA 16+” certificate to the Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan, arguing that the order was passed without giving the board an adequate opportunity to be heard.
CBFC made the arguments before a bench of chief justice MM Shrivastava and justice Arul Murugan, which was hearing its appeal challenging a single bench’s January 9 order directing the board to grant certification to the film.
The bench heard both sides and reserved its orders on Tuesday.
Appearing for CBFC, additional solicitor general (ASG) ARL Sundaresan said justice PT Asha, the single judge who heard the matter earlier this month, decided the case without allowing CBFC to file a counter affidavit. He recalled that the CBFC chairperson’s January 6 communication had been set aside without being specifically challenged, and that CBFC was not given an opportunity to place its response on record.
Sundaresan also reasoned 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.
The controversy relates to Jana Nayagan, directed by H Vinoth and starring actor Vijay, who has launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The film has been widely projected as Vijay’s last cinematic outing before his full-time entry into electoral politics.
{{/usCountry}}The controversy relates to Jana Nayagan, directed by H Vinoth and starring actor Vijay, who has launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The film has been widely projected as Vijay’s last cinematic outing before his full-time entry into electoral politics.
{{/usCountry}}Trouble began on January 6, when the CBFC chairperson decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee, despite the Examining Committee of the CBFC’s Chennai regional office having agreed to grant a “UA 16+” certificate, subject to certain edits.
KVN Productions challenged this decision before the Madras High Court, and justice Asha, on January 9, quashed the chairperson’s referral order and directed CBFC to issue the certification. Justice Asha had held that the chairperson acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification process after the examining committee had already cleared the film.
The CBFC chairperson’s decision, citing a complaint raising concerns over “religious sentiments and the portrayal of the armed forces, has delayed the film’s planned January 9 Pongal release.
Sundaresan told the division bench that 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 producers, KVN Productions, through senior advocate Satish Parasaran, underlined that the Board had effectively accepted the examining committee’s recommendation by December 22 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 bench, 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 single judge had not given the CBFC even a day 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.