'Jana Nayagan' Movie Case : Live Updates From Madras High Court Hearing | CBFC Appeal against Vijay's Film

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

20 Jan 2026 11:19 AM IST

Share this

Jana Nayagan Movie Case : Live Updates From Madras High Court Hearing | CBFC Appeal against Vijays Film

Listen to this Article

The Madras High Court will continue hearing today an appeal filed by the CBFC challenging a single judge's order asking it to give U/A certificate for the 'JanaNayagan' movie starring Tamil actor-politician Vijay.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will hear the appeal. On January 9th, a single judge had directed the CBFC to forthwith certify the movie. However, the division bench stayed the single bench's order the same day evening.

Though this order was challenged in the Supreme Court by producer KVN Production, the Court refused to interfere, noting that the High Court was scheduled to hear the matter on January 20.

Follow this page for live updates from the hearing.

Live Updates

20 Jan 2026 2:45 PM IST
Parasaran takes the court through the timeline of how case was heard
Parasaran: There's an intimation by board that chairperson would pass order on 5/1. Then there's a communication regarding this intimation on 6/1. But the impugned order is still not there.
20 Jan 2026 2:43 PM IST
ASG concludes
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran begins submission for
20 Jan 2026 2:42 PM IST
ASG: 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
20 Jan 2026 2:41 PM IST
CJ: So your argument is that the power under Rule 25 to send to revising committee exists
ASG: Yes. Even after tentative communication, it will be there. Decision making process is complete only when the certificate is granted.
20 Jan 2026 2:38 PM IST
CJ: Single judge has said that once a communication was made regarding certification, the power to send for review would stand abdicated.
ASG: my submission is that the observation is wrong. The certification, in the end, is as per the decision of the board
20 Jan 2026 2:35 PM IST
CJ: So if there was no case, the revising committee would have been formed on 6/1 and by 26/1 it would have been done?
ASG: If nothing came in between, it would have been done by 26th
20 Jan 2026 2:34 PM IST
Court asks if there is any provision necessitating the revising committee to decide within a time frame.
ASG: Yes your honour. Rule 37(7)(a). It has to be done within 20 days
20 Jan 2026 2:32 PM IST
ASG takes the court through the procedure of sending the movie to revising committee. Says the movie can also be sent to a second revising committee if needed
20 Jan 2026 2:27 PM IST
ASG takes the court through provisions of cinematograph act
ASG: A person has to apply to board, the board will examine and sanction. Only after sanction, there would be an accrued right and only then there's an obligation for which mandamus can be issued.
20 Jan 2026 2:24 PM IST
CJ (to ASG) Your arguments are complete?
ASG: On the initial issues my lord. Not on merits
CJ: We first want to decide the preliminary issue. But if you want you can argue on merit also

Next Updates Previous Updates

'Jana Nayagan' Movie Case : Live Updates From Madras High Court Hearing | CBFC Appeal against Vijay's Film

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Live Updates

Parasaran takes the court through the timeline of how case was heard Parasaran: There's an intimation by board that chairperson would pass order on 5/1. Then there's a communication regarding this intimation on 6/1. But the impugned order is still not there.

ASG concludes Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran begins submission for

ASG: 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

CJ: So your argument is that the power under Rule 25 to send to revising committee exists ASG: Yes. Even after tentative communication, it will be there. Decision making process is complete only when the certificate is granted.

CJ: Single judge has said that once a communication was made regarding certification, the power to send for review would stand abdicated. ASG: my submission is that the observation is wrong. The certification, in the end, is as per the decision of the board

CJ: So if there was no case, the revising committee would have been formed on 6/1 and by 26/1 it would have been done? ASG: If nothing came in between, it would have been done by 26th

Court asks if there is any provision necessitating the revising committee to decide within a time frame. ASG: Yes your honour. Rule 37(7)(a). It has to be done within 20 days

ASG takes the court through the procedure of sending the movie to revising committee. Says the movie can also be sent to a second revising committee if needed

ASG takes the court through provisions of cinematograph act ASG: A person has to apply to board, the board will examine and sanction. Only after sanction, there would be an accrued right and only then there's an obligation for which mandamus can be issued.

CJ (to ASG) Your arguments are complete? ASG: On the initial issues my lord. Not on merits CJ: We first want to decide the preliminary issue. But if you want you can argue on merit also

Parasaran takes the court through the timeline of how case was heard
Parasaran: There's an intimation by board that chairperson would pass order on 5/1. Then there's a communication regarding this intimation on 6/1. But the impugned order is still not there.

ASG concludes
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran begins submission for

CJ: So your argument is that the power under Rule 25 to send to revising committee exists
ASG: Yes. Even after tentative communication, it will be there. Decision making process is complete only when the certificate is granted.

CJ: Single judge has said that once a communication was made regarding certification, the power to send for review would stand abdicated.
ASG: my submission is that the observation is wrong. The certification, in the end, is as per the decision of the board

CJ: So if there was no case, the revising committee would have been formed on 6/1 and by 26/1 it would have been done?
ASG: If nothing came in between, it would have been done by 26th

Court asks if there is any provision necessitating the revising committee to decide within a time frame.
ASG: Yes your honour. Rule 37(7)(a). It has to be done within 20 days

ASG takes the court through provisions of cinematograph act
ASG: A person has to apply to board, the board will examine and sanction. Only after sanction, there would be an accrued right and only then there's an obligation for which mandamus can be issued.

CJ (to ASG) Your arguments are complete?
ASG: On the initial issues my lord. Not on merits
CJ: We first want to decide the preliminary issue. But if you want you can argue on merit also