Jana Nayagan Censor Certificate Row: Madras High Court To Pronounce Orders On CBFC's Appeal On January 27

The Madras High Court will pronounce orders on 27th January (Tuesday) on appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) challenging a single judge's order directing it to forthwith grant "UA" certification for actor-politician Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will pronounce orders on Tuesday morning. The court had reserved orders on 20th January after hearing the CBFC and the movie's producer at length.

The movie, which is slated to be the final movie of Actor Vijay before his official entry into politics, was caught in a legal web after the CBFC delayed its certification. The producers of the movie, KVN Productions, approached the court against the delay.

The production house argued that, though it had been informed by the board that the movie would be given a "UA" certificate upon certain incisions/modifications, the certificate had not been issued even after making such changes. The production house also questioned the CBFC chairperson's decision to send the movie to the revising committee after informing that it would be given a "UA" certificate.

The CBFC, however, informed the single judge that a decision was taken to send the movie to the revising committee upon receipt of a complaint from one of the members of the examining committee alleging that his objections were not considered. It was submitted that the complaint disclosed that some of the scenes in the movie could hurt religious sentiments and even portrayed the armed forces wrongly.

The single judge, on January 9, ruled in favour of the production house and directed the CBFC to certify the movie forthwith. The court observed that the Chairperson's decision to send the movie for review, after informing the producers that the movie would be certified, was without jurisdiction. The court also criticised against entertaining complaints from the members of the examining committee, after they had already given their recommendations.

Soon after the single judge's order, an urgent mention was made before the Chief Justice's bench. On the same day, the division bench stayed the single judge's order. The court also made strong remarks against the producers for "creating an urgency" and putting pressure on the judicial system.

On January 20, the court continued hearing the appeal. The CBFC, represented by ASG ARL Sundaresan, argued broadly on two points. First, that the Board was not given time to file a counter affidavit, and second, the communication dated January 06 for review of the film certification by the Revising Committee was not challenged by the producers.

On the other hand, the production house, represented by Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran and Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, argued that the examining committee had already taken a unanimous decision to certify the movie, and could not have gone back on this decision. It was also argued that the Chairperson's order to send the movie for review was never shared with the producers, and only an intimation regarding the same had been received.

Parasaran also pointed out that the complaint received by the Chairperson sought deletion of scenes that were already deleted upon suggestions by the examining committee. He argued that the CBFC now wanted to reintroduce deleted scenes to remove it again, which was an empty exercise.

Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP

Case No: C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026