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

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 20) reserved its verdict in the appeal preferred by the Central Board of Film Certification against a single bench order directing it to grant UA certificate to actor-politican Vijay's Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan'.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 ExchangeToday, 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...

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

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

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers