BREAKING| Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain 'Jana Nayagan' Film Producer's Plea For CBFC Clearance, Asks Madras HC To Decide On Jan 20

The Supreme Court today(January 15) dismissed the petition filed by the producer of Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", starring actor-politician Vijay, seeking clearance by the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC).

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih refused to entertain the matter noting that the Madras High Court's Division Bench is scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.

The petition was filed by the film's producer, KVN Productions LLP, against the Madras High Court Division Bench's order, which stayed the Single Bench's direction to the CBFC to certify the film immediately.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for KVN, submitted that it is a long-settled industry practice to announce the release date before CBFC clearance. He said that over 5000 theatres were booked. 

Justice Datta then commented on the brisk manner in which the single bench disposed of the matter within one day. "We would welcome all the judges to dispose the matters within a day or two of its filing. But this should happen in all cases. This is a blistering pace...matter filed on 6th, decided on 7th...when the matter is fixed before the division bench on 20th, they have a right of appeal...."

Justice Datta also pointed out that the CBFC Chairperson's order dated January 6, referring the matter to the Revising Committee, was not challenged. When the Division Bench has listed the matter for January 20, then there is no need for the Supreme Court to interfere at this juncture, Justice Datta observed.

Rohatgi submitted that the communication from the CBFC received on January 5, saying that the film has been referred to the Revising Committee, was challenged. He said that this communication was the same as the January 6 order of the Chairperson. He said that the writ petition was filed challenging the January 5 order, and pending the challenge, the January 6 order was uploaded. Justice Datta said that the writ petition should have been amended to challenge the January 6 order.

Justice Datta said that the precedent cited by the single bench was not applicable to the present case, as it related to a service matter. Rohatgi claimed that the entire exercise of the CBFC was "mala fide". "You go before the Division Bench," Justice Datta said. "Film is a perishable commodity. This is all done for a single reason," Rohatgi pleaded.

"We are not inclined to interfere," Justice Datta affirmed. Rohatgi then requested the Court to ask the High Court to decide on January 20th itself. "I have lost everything," he exclaimed.

"The division bench of the High Court may endeavour to decide the appeal on the 20th of January," the bench said in the order while dismissing the Special Leave Petition.

The film, touted to be the last film of actor Vijay, who has now plunged into electoral politics by floating his own party TVK, and announced as a Pongal release on January 9, ran into trouble as the CBFC Chairperson decided on January 6 to refer the film to the Revising Committee. This was after the Examining Committee of the CBFC's Chennai Regional Office agreed to give U/A 16+ certification for the film, subject to certain edits.

Challenging the CBFC's decision, the producer approached the High Court. The producer, in their writ petition before the High Court, submitted that, after the film was initially submitted for certification in December 2025, the CBFC suggested some changes. Accepting the CBFC's proposals, a revised version was submitted on December 24, 2025. On December 29, 2025, the Regional Office of the CBFC at Chennai informed the producer that the revised version would be certified. However, the producers could not complete the final uploading process of the film due to some technical glitches in the portal, and they informed the CBFC's office regarding this.

On January 5, they received a communication that the CBFC Chairperson has decided to refer the film to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Rules on account of a complaint received with reference to the content (hurting religious sensibilities and portrayal of armed forces). The complaint was filed by one of the members of the Examining Committee, which had initially cleared the film. The order passed by the Chairperson was uploaded on January 6.

On January 9, a Single Bench of the High Court, allowing the producer's plea, directed the CBFC to issue the certificate immediately. 

Justice PT Asha of the High Court held that the Chairperson's decision to suo motu refer the film to the revising committee, after the Board accepted the recommendation of the Examining Committee, was unsustainable. The single bench also held that the complaint filed by a member of the Examining Committee, who had initially decided to certify the film, was untenable. "Such a volte face by a member of an Examining committee who had made a recommendation after viewing and assimilating the film would give rise to a dangerous trend of members reneging on their recommendation and the sanctity placed on the decision of the Examining Committee of the CBFC would stand eroded," the single bench observed.

However, on the same day, the CBFC moved an urgent appeal before the Division Bench, which heard it the same day and stayed the Single Bench's direction. The Division Bench adjourned the matter to January 20 for further hearing. The Division Bench observed that the Single Bench passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The writ petition, filed on January 6, was heard on January 7.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Chairperson's order passed on January 6 was not challenged in the writ petition. The Division Bench also observed that during the hearing, the producers put unnecessary pressure on the Court for an urgent decision by saying that the movie was slated for release on January 9. The Division Bench questioned the producers for announcing the release date before getting the CBFC clearance.

Case Details : KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification Diary No.1894/2026