Producers of actor-politician Vijay’s film Jana Nayagan on Wednesday deferred its January 9 release after the Madras high court reserved its judgment on their petition against the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) delay in issuing a censor certificate.
The film’s producer, KVN Productions LLP, announced the postponement in a post on X, stating:
“The release of Jana Nayagan has been postponed due to unavoidable circumstances beyond our control. We deeply understand the anticipation, excitement and emotions surrounding this film, and the decision was not easy for any of us. The new release date will be announced at the earliest.”
Earlier on Wednesday, justice PT Asha of the Madras HC, before reserving her verdict, questioned the CBFC’s move to reopen the certification of the film after the Examining Committee had already cleared it, subject to cuts. The court observed that the Board appeared to have “acted solely on the basis of a complaint,” even though all objections raised earlier had been addressed.
The judge noted that the Examining Committee had suggested certain excisions and muted words, which the producers accepted and implemented. Despite this, the CBFC withheld the certificate.
{{/usCountry}}The judge noted that the Examining Committee had suggested certain excisions and muted words, which the producers accepted and implemented. Despite this, the CBFC withheld the certificate.
{{/usCountry}}“Now the only ground on which you want to review the movie is based on the complaint, which on the face of it is not maintainable because all objections raised in the complaint have already been dealt with,” Justice Asha said.
The court said the CBFC must keep in mind that it functions as a statutory authority and questioned how a completed certification process could be reopened on such grounds, expressing visible disapproval.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for KVN Productions LLP, told the court that the Examining Committee had recommended a U/A 16+ certificate after suggesting 27 cuts and modifications. He said the producers complied with all directions and resubmitted the modified version on December 24, 2025. However, the CBFC did not issue the certificate and instead referred the film to the Revising Committee on January 5, just days before its scheduled January 9 release.
Parasaran said the delay had caused serious financial loss, mental stress and reputational harm to the producers. He told the court that the production house had invested nearly ₹500 crore and planned a release across 5,000 screens worldwide. He also pointed out that the CBFC’s communication did not disclose the complainant’s identity or details of the complaint.
Appearing for the CBFC, additional solicitor general A R L Sundaresan argued that the Chairperson of the Board was not bound by the Examining Committee’s decision. He said the Chairperson could order a review under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, “either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint.”
Sundaresan also told the court that the complainant was a “member of the Examining Committee” and that the decision to halt certification came from the Chairperson.
Justice Asha then asked whether, as per the rules, committee recommendations lose relevance once the Chairperson initiates suo motu action.
Earlier, on January 6, after the producers sought an urgent hearing, the judge directed the CBFC to place all records, including the complaint, before the court.
The producers argued that the CBFC’s decision to re-examine the film’s certification was illegal and arbitrary.