Chennai: The Madras High Court Chief Justice’s Bench has stayed the order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court earlier in the day directing Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate to actor-politician Vijay’s movie Jana Nayagan. The Chief Justice’s Bench will hear CBFC’s writ appeal against the earlier order on 21 January.
The counsel representing the movie’s production house is now exploring possibilities to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appeal filed by CBFC against the order issued by a single-judge bench came up for hearing in the evening before the bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan.
While hearing the appeal filed by the CBFC against the earlier order, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L Sundaresan said they were not given the opportunity to file a counter affidavit before the single judge-bench.
The ASG, appearing for CBFC, also said that the single judge-bench cannot mould the relief and set aside the CBFC chairman’s decision, and that the chairman has the right to refer the movie to the revising committee.
The Chief Justice asked how a single judge-bench could pass an order without giving an opportunity for CBFC to file a counter affidavit. The Chief Justice also asked how a producer can create a false state of urgency and put pressure on the court to grant certificate forthwith without granting time for CBFC to file a counter affidavit.
Stating that they will not allow the single judge’s order to be given effect, the Chief Justice’s Bench stayed the single judge-bench’s order and adjourned the writ appeal petition for further hearing on 21 January.
In a relief to actor-politician Vijay, a single-judge bench of the high court earlier Friday directed the CBFC to immediately issue a censor certificate to Vijay starrer Jana Nayagan, holding that the board had acted “without jurisdiction” in attempting to reopen the certification after approving it.
Allowing a writ petition filed by KVN Productions, Justice P.T. Asha set aside the CBFC chairperson’s decision to refer the film to a revising committee and directed the board’s Chennai regional office to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to Vijay’s film right away.
“This is a case where ‘Jana Nayagan’ has had its opening scene before the Constitutional Court,” the judge remarked (referring to the screening of the film in the court), before going on to lay out, in meticulous detail, how the CBFC had overstepped the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024.
Soon after the single-judge bench passed the order Friday, the ASG made a mention before the Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava for urgent hearing of a writ appeal against the order. The Chief Justice asked the ASG to file the petition and said he would consider it.
The film was originally scheduled to be released 9 January. However, after the Madras High Court reserved its order on 7 January, KVN productions announced that the movie was postponed and the dates would be announced later.
The producer of Jana Nayagan had applied for certification 18 December 2025. After viewing the film, the examining committee unanimously recommended a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to specific excisions. This recommendation was formally communicated by the CBFC’s regional office 22 December 2025.
The producer carried out all the cuts and re-submitted the revised version 24 December. Internal records placed before the court showed that the excisions were verified the same day. At that stage, the only step left under the rules was the issuance of the certificate, according to the judgment.
However, on 5 January, the producer was informed that the film was being referred to a revising committee under Rule 25, following a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and improperly portrayed the armed forces.
Rejecting the CBFC’s defence, the single-judge bench had held that once the board had accepted the examining committee’s recommendation and communicated it, the chairperson’s power to invoke Rule 25 ceased to exist.
“A perusal of the communication dated 22.12.2025 clearly denotes that the board has accepted the recommendation of the examining committee,” it said. Adding, “Therefore, on and from 22.12.2025 the power of the chairperson to exercise his power under Rule 25 came to an end.”
The judge added that “once the excisions are done, the certification automatically follows,” as the process had already crossed the stage where a revising committee could be constituted.
Terming the later decision to reopen the matter legally untenable, the single-judge bench had ruled, “The subsequent decision to refer the film to a revising committee… is one without jurisdiction.”
The complainant, a member of the examining committee, had himself signed Form VIII recommending certification after cuts. “It is crystal clear that the complainant’s grievance… appears to be an afterthought and appears motivated,” the bench observed.
Warning of the wider consequences, the single-judge bench said such conduct would lead to “a dangerous trend of members reneging on their recommendation”, eroding the sanctity of CBFC decisions.
Dismissing the CBFC’s argument that the producer should have separately challenged the later decision uploaded on the e-cinepramaan portal, the single-judge bench had held that a writ court could “mould” relief to prevent injustice.
Accordingly, it directed the CBFC to issue the U/A 16+ certificate in line with Rule 27(1) and the prescribed timelines under Rule 37, and closed the case without costs.
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Viny Mishra)