CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved the orders on the appeal petition filed by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) challenging the single judge’s order to issue U/A (16+) certification for actor-politician Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’ as decided by the examining committee, after the counsels for the respective sides completed arguments.
The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the arguments before reserving orders.
The much-trumpeted movie, touted to be Vijay’s last, was originally scheduled for release on January 9, 2026. Following the delay in issuing the certification by the CBFC, the film’s producers (KVN Productions) moved a writ petition. The petitioners prayed for directions to the CBFC to grant U/A certification as communicated by the board immediately and questioned the legality of referring the movie to the revising committee after directing 14 cuts which were duly complied with.
However, the CBFC contended that the reference to the revising committee was made by the chairperson of the board after receiving a complaint from one of the members of the examining committee over certain issues including portrayal of the armed forces.
Justice P T Asha, on January 9, passed orders on the writ petition directing the board to grant U/A certification forthwith finding the chairperson had acted without jurisdiction as the decision of the examining committee becomes final once it is accepted and communicated to the producers.
On the same day, in quick succession, the CBFC moved the appeal before the first bench led by the CJ and an interim injunction was immediately granted. The producers’ bid to get the injunction stayed by the Supreme Court went in vain as the apex court reverted the matter back to the HC.
During arguments on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A R L Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, submitted that the producers were asked to carry out 14 cuts and informed that a decision would be taken after going through the movie again.
“The producers cannot claim certification only because 14 cuts were made. It was referred to the revising committee following the complaint. The examining committee is advisory in nature and can give recommendations but only the board can take the final decision as provided under the Cinematograph Act,” the ASG said.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for the producers, submitted that the urgent petition was filed only because it was decided to release the movie on January 9. The copy of the complaint lodged against the movie was not furnished to the producers but only a communication was sent, he added.
Decrying the lack of transparency on part of the board as it has not made the proceedings public, he said once the 14 cuts were carried out, it cannot be repeated only because a member of the committee lodged a complaint.
When the bench questioned as to why the release date was announced prior to obtaining certification, the counsel replied that it was norm followed even in Bollywood.