BREAKING| Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Bench Direction To Certify 'Jana Nayagan' Movie; Directs Fresh Hearing

The Madras High court, on Tuesday (27th January) set aside an order of the single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate for Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan however sent the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration noting that the natural justice principles were not followed. The single bench has been directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The producer KVN Productions has also been given liberty to amend the writ petition.

The court noted that the allegations made in the complaint against the movie were of serious nature prompting the Chairperson to send the movie for review. The court noted that considering the seriousness involved in the complaint, the single judge should have given opportunity to the CBFC to defend its decision.

The court also noted that the single judge should not have gone into the merits of the case in absence of any prayer challenging the Chairperson's order. The court thus asked the producers to amend their prayer before the writ court and challenge the chairperson's order sending the movie for review.

The division bench observed that the single bench ought not to have gone into the merits of the decision without granting sufficient opportunity to the CBFC.

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.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai and Advocate Vijayan Subramaniam appeared for the production house. The CBFC was represented by ASG ARL Sundaresan.

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