CHENNAI: Bringing immediate relief to the makers of actor politician Vijay’s much anticipated film Jana Nayagan, the Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a UA 16+ censor certificate to the movie forthwith, even as the film board said it would appeal against the order and sought the court’s permission to do so.
Justice P T Asha passed the order on a petition filed by K Venkat Narayana of KVN Productions, which challenged the CBFC chairperson’s decision to refer the film to the Revising Committee after the Examining Committee had already cleared it for UA certification, subject to certain cuts.
The court also set aside the CBFC chairperson’s letter dated January 6, by which the film was referred to the Revising Committee for further scrutiny, holding that the chairperson had acted without jurisdiction.
Amid tempers running high among Vijay’s fans over the delay in the film’s release, the judge ordered the CBFC to issue the certificate immediately.
The producers had originally scheduled the film’s release for January 9, 2026, but later announced a postponement after the certification issue arose.
Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan, appearing for the CBFC, submitted that the chairperson was well within his powers to refer the film to the Revising Committee even after the Examining Committee had taken a decision. He said the decision was taken based on a complaint allegedly lodged by one of the members of the Examining Committee.
The ASG argued that the chairperson was not bound by the Examining Committee’s decision and was empowered to refer the movie for further review.
He also contended that the petitioner could not compel the board to take an expeditious decision merely because a release date had been fixed.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for the petitioner, countered that if one member out of the five member Examining Committee had dissented, the decision should have stood as a 4:1 majority verdict and that it was not for the dissenting member to complain.
He submitted that the chairperson could not reopen the certification process under the guise of a complaint by one of the committee members and refer the film to the Revising Committee.
In her order, Justice Asha observed that the grievance raised by the complainant was an “after thought” and that entertaining such complaints would set a dangerous precedent. The judge held that once the chairperson had communicated the grant of certification on behalf of the Examining Committee, his powers stood exhausted and he lacked jurisdiction to refer the film to the Revising Committee thereafter.
The court noted that the CBFC had decided to grant a censor certificate to the film and had communicated the decision to the producer on December 22, 2025.
“Once the board had taken a decision and sent a communication, the Chairperson has no power to send the matter to the Review Committee based on a subsequent complaint by one of the panel members,” the judge said.
Exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court said it was empowered to mould the relief sought and accordingly set aside the January 6 letter referring the matter to the Revising Committee.
Rejecting the ASG’s contention that the petitioner could only challenge the January 6 letter and not seek a mandamus directing issuance of the certificate, the judge said the argument could not be sustained.
Soon after the judgment was pronounced, ASG Sundaresan made an urgent mention before Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava seeking permission for the CBFC to file an appeal against the single judge’s order and requesting that it be taken up immediately.
Responding orally, the Chief Justice said, “You file the appeal and inform us, we will consider your request.”
The producers had approached the High Court after it was alleged that a complaint had been lodged against the yet to be released film, claiming it hurt religious sentiments. On January 6, when the plea first came up for hearing, Justice Asha had orally directed the CBFC to produce a copy of the alleged complaint on January 7.
After hearing both sides, the High Court had reserved its order on January 7 on the plea seeking a direction to the CBFC to grant a UA 16+ certificate to the film.
Directed by H Vinoth, Jana Nayagan stars Vijay, Prakash Raj, Pooja Hegde and Mamitha Baiju, among others. The completed film was submitted for certification on December 18. The following day, the Examining Committee reportedly suggested the removal of certain scenes and muting of some dialogues.
The production house submitted that despite complying with all the changes suggested by the censor board members, the certificate was not issued, leading to the present litigation.
Meanwhile, as Tamil Nadu awaits the release of politically loaded films Jana Nayagan and Parasakthi, which reportedly captures the language struggle and is said to reflect shades of Dravidian ideology, it remains unclear whether the films will hit the screens ahead of the harvest festival Pongal next week.
(With inputs from PTI)
