"Producers Not Notified For Review Of Film": Madras High Court Questions CBFC Over Non-Certification Of Jana Nayagan Film, Reserves Order

The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved orders on a plea filed by producers of the upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay, over the non-issuance of the CBFC certificate.

While reserving the orders, the court questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on its decision to reopen the certification process of the Tamil film JanaNayagan, observing that the entire exercise of sending the film for review appeared to be based solely on a complaint whose objections had already been addressed.

Justice PT Asha noted that the Examining Committee's objections had been considered earlier, excisions were made, and objectionable words were muted, yet the Board chose to stall issuance of the certificate.

“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,” the Court remarked.

The Court reminded the CBFC that it was a responsible statutory body and questioned how a completed certification process could be reopened on the basis of such a complaint.

“You're a responsible body. When the entire exercise of revision is based on a complaint, and the complaint only says that objections have not been considered…” the Court observed, trailing off in visible disapproval.

CBFC Defends Chairperson's Power To Order Review

Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan argued that the Chairperson was not bound by the decision of the Examining Committee and could order a review even after the committee had viewed the film.

He submitted that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the Chairperson could differ from the committee's opinion either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint.

“Even if the letter was not there, the Chairperson is not bound by the decision of the committee,” the ASG submitted.

According to the ASG, if after examination and opinion, even one committee member raised objections, the Chairperson could consider those objections and send the film to the Revising Committee.

Justice Asha, however, sought clarity on the procedure. “So after the Chairperson takes suo motu action, there is no question of recommendation by the committee? The recommendations about cuts and modifications do not take place?” the Judge asked.

Court Flags Lack Of Notice To Producers

The Court also questioned the CBFC on why the producers were not informed about the decision to send the film for review, particularly when communications had earlier indicated that certification would be granted.

“At no point of time, they were put on notice about the review,” Justice Asha observed, asking why the producers were allowed to proceed with modifications if the Chairperson had already decided to order a review.

The ASG responded that the Chairperson had instructed the Regional Office to put the process on hold and claimed that the producers were informed on January 5, 2026.

He further submitted that under the Rules, the CBFC had 15 days to examine a film and 20 days to constitute a Revising Committee once a decision to review was taken.

“When there is a two-tier system, we should not be curtailed from taking it up with the second tier,” the ASG argued, adding that the petitioner could not seek to prohibit the CBFC from exercising statutory powers.

Producers Call Review Arbitrary And Illegal

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for KVN Productions, strongly objected to the reopening of the process, arguing that a committee member could not convert themselves into a complainant.

“After seeing the movie, the member could have only made recommendations. The member has now become the complainant. I don't know how that happens,” Parasaran submitted.

He argued that the law recognised a distinction between recommendations and complaints and that once a majority decision was taken by the Examining Committee, the opinion of one member could not invalidate it.

“Even if one member has objections, it is still a 4:1 majority. How does the opinion of one member become the basis for review?” he asked.

Parasaran further submitted that Rule 24 could be invoked only when no majority decision had been reached, which was not the case here.

He also pointed out that all communications were required to be routed through the e-Cinepraman portal, but the entire review exercise had been carried out “outside the radar”.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran for Vijayan Subramaniam

Counsel for Respondent: ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General

Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another

Case No: WP 380 of 2026