'Producers Tried To Put Pressure': Madras High Court Stays Order Directing CBFC To Grant U/A Certificate To Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Film

The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed the single judge's order delivered earlier today directing CBFC to forthwith grant U/A Certificate for Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan' starring Vijay.

A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in its order dictated:

"Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents".

Thereafter the bench stayed the single judge's order.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice orally questioned CBFC over the urgency to file the appeal today itself. For context, an urgent motion for appeal was made by the ASG minutes after the single judge decision.

The appeal was filed soon thereafter and was taken up for hearing based on a mentioning made by the ASG.

Responding to the query, the ASG submitted that the proceedings before single judge were hasty and the board did not get an opportunity to defend the issue by filing counter. He said,

"Petition filed on 5th (January). 6th it came up before the court. We were asked to produce the letter (intimating review of certification). We produced it on 7th. We produced the complaint from Bombay and produced it on 7th in an envelope. Matter was heard on 7th afternoon and orders passed today."

ASG said the court found the letter by Chairperson on 6th jan to be without jurisdiction. He argued that the letter was not challenged before the high court and no certiorari was sought.

ASG submitted producers had applied for certification only on December 18. He said that after considering the issues, the movie was sent to Review Committee this was communicated to producer before the writ petition was filed.

Referring to the single judge's order the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "Moulding the relief would not include setting aside an order that's not challenged. Moulding would only be granting something in connection with what has been sought".

He further by moulding the relief, the provisions of the Act would be made redundant.

Meanwhile appearing for producers KVN Productions Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that the complaint (against the film) was actually filed by a member of the CBFC committee.

At this stage the Chief Justice asked, "What was the urgency that the respondent (Board) was asked to respond to the plea and the matter was decided within 2 days?"

Rohatgi says that the movie was to be released on January 9. However the court orally remarked that the producers could have waited for the certificate.

"You're creating an urgency and putting pressure on court. False state of urgency is being created saying that 'we have to release the movie on such date'...6th January order is not under challenge and it has been challenged. How can you go ahead with the release of the movie without even a certificate on hand? You can't fix a date (for release) and put pressure on the system" the court said to Rohatgi.

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran also appearing for KVNProductions read out the earlier order of the examining committee saying that U/A certificate would be granted subject to modifications.

At this stage the court said: "You could've waited for 15 days. Could've waited for some time".The court added that there was not much urgency

The Chief Justice thereafter said, "We'll pass some order but till that time we can't let this order be given effect to".

The court further said that the authority (CBFC) should've been given proper opportunity to object to the producer's writ petition.

At this stage Rohatgi said that it was "shocking" that the member of the CBFC committee was themselves filing the complaint. However the Solicitor General said that only members of the committee had seen the movie.

For context single judge Justice PT Asha had earlier today pronounced the order allowing the producers' plea directing the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant U/A certificate to upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay.

Minutes thereafter, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for CBFC made an urgent mention before the Chief Justice's bench for listing of appeal. The bench had asked the ASG to mention the matter when the appeal is filed.

In the post lunch sessions, ASG Sundaresan appearing before a division bench of led by the Chief Justice, mentioned the appeal and said, "Order passed in the morning. We have filed the appeal. The court (single judge) has said that the letter of Chairperson was without jurisdiction. That was not even challenged in the plea".

Meanwhile Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appearing for CBFC said, "There's urgency my lords. The prayer was for A,B, C. But relief granted is D".ASG said that the CBFC was not given time to file counter and that the producer's petition (before single judge) was heard in 2 days.

The film was held up due to a complaint made to the censor board alleging that contents of the movie hurt religious sentiments. Set to hit the theaters today, as per news reports, its release has been postponed.

The single judge in her order said that the CBFC Chairperson had decided to send the movie for review after receiving a complaint from one of the committee members alleging that his objections were not considered. This complaint, the court noted, was an afterthought and was motivated.

"It is therefore crystal clear that the complainant's grievance that he had not been granted an opportunity appears to be an afterthought and appears motivated," the court observed.

The court also observed that the examining committee, through the Chairperson had already informed the producers of their decision to grant "UA" certificate for the movie, subject to certain incisions/modifications. The court also noted that this decision was communicated to the producers as per Rule 26 on 22nd December 2025.

The court observed that the chairperson's power to send the movie for review would come to an end once the decision was communicated to the producers.

"A mere perusal of the above would clearly show that the Authority viz., the Chairperson has decided on behalf of the Board to take further action in conformity with the unanimous recommendation of the Examining Committee. Therefore, on and from 22.12.2025 the power of the Chairperson to exercise his power under Rule 25 came to an end. Therefore, the decision of the Chairperson which has been uploaded only on 06.01.2026 is without jurisdiction," the court said.

The court thus noted that once the Board had informed that a UA certificate would be issued after incisions, such certificate should automatically follow after the modifications.

"Further, the letter dated 22.12.2025 clearly spells out the recommendation of the Examining Committee as accepted by the Board which was “to grant UA certification subject to excision”. Therefore, once the excisions are done the certification automatically follows," the court said.

Film's producer KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, submitted that on December 22, a communication was received from the Regional Office informing that the Examining Committee had recommended granting a "UA" certificate for the movie, subject to the compliance of certain excisions and modifications specified in the communication.

It was further submitted that these modifications had been carried out and the movie was resubmitted following which, on December 29, the regional office informed that the movie would be given a UA certificate.

However, on January 5 the producer received an email from CBFC's Regional Office informing that the competent authority had decided to refer the movie to the Revising Committee as per Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules based on the above complaint.

The Court today said that the action was without jurisdiction and once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow. It further said: "Exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction since the power of chairperson to send for review stood abdicated after he, on behalf of committee informed that UA certificate would be granted subject to incisions".

The appeal is next listed on January 21.

Click Here To Read/Download Order