Madras High Court Reserves Verdict On CBFC Appeal Against Direction To Certify Vijay Starrer 'Jana Nayagan' Film

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved orders after a 3-hour long hearing today. The bench had previously stayed the single judge order.

During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, appearing for CBFC, made two-fold arguments. One, the Board was not given time to file a counter affidavit and two, the communication dated January 06 for review of the film certification by the Revising Committee was not challenged by the producers.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for the Producer, on the other hand, argued that the CBFC Regional Office had, after unanimous recommendation of the examining committee, communicated the decision to grant UA certificate to the film, and the same could not have been referred for review to the Revising Committee. "A unanimous decision was taken and even if one member later takes a different decision, there is still a majority decision. Right now the minority decision is governing."

Parasaran further argued that the Producers had already deleted the scenes that the complainant had objected to. "They want us to re-introduce the scenes that were deleted, submit the movie as it was before and then delete the same scenes. All this is on facts. It has not been disputed. It's an empty exercise," he said.

The ASG however submitted that facts can be seen as admitted only if an opportunity is given to counter.

For context, the film producer KVN Productions had received a communication on December 22, 2025 from the Regional CBFC Office at Chennai, informing that the Examining Committee had recommended granting a "UA" certificate for the movie, subject to certain excisions.

On December 29, 2025, these modifications were carried out and the regional office informed that UA certificate would be given.

On January 05 however, another communication was received by the producer informing that the competent authority had decided to refer the movie to the Revising Committee. This prompted the producer to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction, the very next day.

CBFC argued 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 and send the movie for review even after the examining committee's decision.

The single judge however ruled in favour of the producer and observed that CBFC chairman's decision to send the movie for review was without jurisdiction. The decision was stayed the same day by a division bench.

Courtroom Exchange

Today, CBFC in its appeal argued that the single judge did not give them adequate opportunity to present their case. ASG Sundaresan submitted, "When the matter was taken up (by single judge), I told them that the decision of January 05 was not challenged (by the producer) and even for issuing mandamus, we should be permitted to file counter. However, the court decided to hear the matter based on materials before it."

ASG contended that the decision dated December 22, 2025 taken by the Chennai regional office was only "intermediary" and not a final decision. He submitted that the recommendation made by regional office are sent to the Board (situated at Mumbai) which then takes a decision to certify or not certify the movie.

"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," the division bench asked at this stage.

As the ASG responded in the affirmative, the Court further inquired, "It may not be practical for the Board at Bombay to sit and examine every movie. So this advisory panel is there to assist the Board. But their recommendation is not binding?"

"Yes your honour. It's not binding," the ASG responded, adding, the regional office subsequently received a communication from the Board, asking to put its recommendation for UA certification "on hold", in light of a complaint received by the Board.

The ASG submitted that the Revising Committee is bound to decide the issue within 20 days. So if there were no impediments, the body would have taken a decision latest by January 26 (counting from January 06) in this case.

The Court at this juncture pointed that the single judge had found that once a communication was made regarding certification to the producer, the power of CBFC to send the film for review would stand abdicated.

"My submission is that the observation is wrong. The certification, in the end, is as per the decision of the board...Even after tentative communication, it (power with CBFC) will be there. Decision making process is complete only when the certificate is granted. If the certificate is given, it is published in the gazette. After this, if there is any difference in the movie which is being shown or any other irregularity, then it can be revoked," ASG submitted.

He added that CBFC was never able to present this defence since it was not given sufficient time before the single judge. Referring to Rules governing High Court's writ jurisdiction, the ASG added, "Respondent who wants to file counter, unless otherwise ordered, shall file the counter within 8 weeks and this can be extended by the court...if not 8 weeks, a short period of 1-2 days should have been granted..."

ASG further contended that Producers had decided to release the movie on a particular day and they argued before the single judge that if more time is granted, they would suffer financially. "They could not have decided the release date beforehand...A reasonable time should have been given to me to respond on facts and law," ASG said.

The ASG continued, "Whether this decision (of review) was right or not could not have been gone into if a prayer was made. I could respond only if a prayer was made. But here relief was granted (by single judge) in the absence of prayer."

ASG cited a Supreme Court case to argue that courts cannot grant reliefs that have not been prayed for.

"Have any exceptions been carved? SC hasn't mentioned anything about exceptional circumstances? In exceptional circumstances it can be done?," the Chief Justice asked.

"No exceptions," the ASG responded.

"But powers of writ court are very wide," the CJ remarked.

Turning to the Producers, the Court orally said, "We are concerned because they were not even given a day's time. What will happen if this is allowed is that, every person will come and say that there is a good case."

The Producer sought to contend that the hearing concluded in a day because "there was no dispute with regard the fact."

The Court however remarked that the case had to be heard because the Producers created an urgency. "ASG was pushed to argue. If we uphold your submission what will happen, it will become a precedent. People will come saying it is urgent case, there's a good case, ask them to produce documents and hear the case in a day," the CJ orally said.

Parasaran then submitted that the decision to review the certification was taken based on the complaint by a member of the examining committee. He submitted, "members of the examining committee could never become the complainant as per the statute."

However, the Court questioned, "Were they (CBFC) given even an hour's time to counter this?"

Parasaran submitted that the authority had come prepared with a sealed envelope. He further contended that after the CBFC Chairperson received a unanimous recommendation from the members, he had the authority to either send to review or go ahead with certification. In this case, he submitted that the communication dated December 22, 2025 by the Chairperson was a decision on behalf of the Board (at Mumbai).

"Where is this direction by the board?" the CJ asked.

"They have to produce that," Parasaran responded.

"The board could have produced only what was there in the regional office in one day's time," the Court retorted.

However Parasaran informed the Court that the authority had produced records from Mumbai itself. The ASG at this juncture informed the Court that the complaint received by the Board was brought from Mumbai through an office.

Inquiring about the Chairperson's order, the Court then asked the ASG, "Where is this letter? The matter has traveled from the writ court to the appeal court but no one has seen this document?"

ASG submitted that the decision for review was taken on December 29, 2025 and a communication about the decision was made to the Producer on 5th through email.