'Jana Nayagan' Movie Case : Live Updates From Madras High Court Hearing | CBFC Appeal against Vijay's Film
The Madras High Court will continue hearing today an appeal filed by the CBFC challenging a single judge's order asking it to give U/A certificate for the 'JanaNayagan' movie starring Tamil actor-politician Vijay.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will hear the appeal. On January 9th, a single judge had directed the CBFC to forthwith certify the movie. However, the division bench stayed the single bench's order the same day evening.
Though this order was challenged in the Supreme Court by producer KVN Production, the Court refused to interfere, noting that the High Court was scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.
Follow this page for live updates from the hearing.
ASG: What has happened in this case, the letter was issued by the advisory panel.
CJ: Now the crucial question is who saw the movie? Were they members of the board?
ASG: They were members of the examining committee, who are part of advisory panel.
CJ: So this advisory panel is not the same as a board? It's for assisting the board? Since it might not be possible for board to examine movie from all over the country
ASG: Yes, my lord
ASG takes the court through the provisions of the Cinematograph Act which details the powers & functions of regional officer
Court says it just wants to understand the statutory scheme.
ASG explains that the recommendation are sent to the Board which then takes a decision to certify or not certify the movie.
CJ: The body which sent the letter to the producers, was it the advisory panel or board itself?
ASG: It was the regional office
CJ: The regional office is at Chennai and the decision came from?
ASG: the board. From Bombay
ASG: After this, they say we have cut the 14 incision and therefore please grant certification. But what has happened in the meanwhile is, from the board a communication is sent saying they have received a complaint. The board asks regional office to put the decision on hold.
ASG: The decision taken after viewing of the film by examining committee regarding 14 cuts. It was only an intermediary decision. Not a final decision.
ASG: However, the court decided to hear the matter based on materials before it. Heard the matter. Reserved orders and passed orders on 9/1/26 setting aside the decision
ASG: When the matter was taken up, I told them that the decision of 5/1 was not challenged and even for issuing mandamus, we should be permitted to file counter
ASG: We produced the originals on 7/1/26. The judge perused them in her chamber and then the hearing commenced post noon.