A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has stayed a single-judge order which had directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to forthwith grant censor clearance to Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan. (CBFC Vs KSVN Productions)
The stay was passed hours after single-judge Justice PT Asha had allowed the producers’ plea and ordered the CBFC to issue a U/A 16 certificate to the film.
A Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan passed the single-judge order on an urgent appeal filed by CBFC. The stay was granted on the ground that the Central government was not allowed time to file their response to the plea.
Justice PT Asha, sitting as a single judge, had allowed the producers’ plea and ordered the CBFC to issue a U/A 16 certificate to the film in accordance with the recommendation of its examining committee.
In her judgment, Justice Asha had held that the CBFC’s decision to send the film for re-examination by a revising committee was flawed and without jurisdiction, particularly since the examining committee’s recommendation for U/A certification subject to excisions had already been accepted by the Board and complied with by the filmmakers.
Jana Nayagan, touted as Vijay’s last film before his full-time political entry, is scheduled for release on January 9. The producers approached the High Court alleging delay on the part of the CBFC in issuing the final censor certificate despite compliance with the cuts suggested by the examining committee.
The controversy arose after the film was referred to a revising committee based on a complaint alleging improper portrayal of defence forces and potential hurt to religious sentiments. It later emerged that the complaint was made by a member of the examining committee itself.
The makers of the film told the Court that they applied for censor certification on December 18, 2025.
Following a personal hearing, the Examining Committee, by communication dated December 22, 2025, recommended grant of certification under the ‘UA 16+’ category, citing depictions of violence, fight sequences, gory visuals, and brief references to religious sentiments as the basis for the age restriction.
The Committee directed certain excisions and modifications. The producers state that these were fully complied with and a revised version of the film was resubmitted on December 24, 2025.
The modifications were verified on December 29, 2025, after which the producers were informed that the film would be granted ‘UA 16+’ certification.
Despite this, the producers received an email dated January 5, 2026, stating that the film was being referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules on the basis of an alleged complaint relating to religious sentiments and the portrayal of armed forces.
The producers argue that the certification rules do not permit reopening a concluded certification process on the basis of undisclosed complaints, particularly after compliance with all mandated cuts.
The producers were represented by Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran and advocates Vijayan Subramanian and Shubang Nair.
The CBFC was represented by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan.
[Read Order]