New Delhi: The Madras High Court Friday cleared the release of ‘Jana Nayagan’, the much-anticipated film starring actor-politician Vijay, holding that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) acted without jurisdiction in referring the film for a fresh review after already approving it.
However, within hours of the single-judge order, a division bench temporarily stayed the direction to issue the censor certificate, pushing the film’s release into uncertainty once again.
The film, reportedly Vijay’s last before his formal entry into politics, also stars Prakash Raj, Bobby Deol, and Pooja Hegde. Its release, originally scheduled Friday, was stalled following a complaint alleging that certain portions of the film hurt religious sentiments.
On Friday morning, Justice P.T. Asha allowed a petition filed by KVN Productions LLP, directing the CBFC to immediately issue the censor certificate that was withheld due to a last-minute procedural reversal. The court examined the authority of the CBFC chairperson to entertain a complaint and subsequently refer the film to a Revising Committee after the certification decision was already taken.
On perusal of records, the court found that the complaint triggering the re-review was filed by a member of the very same Examining Committee (EC) that unanimously recommended certification of the film.
“It is therefore crystal clear that the complainant’s grievance that he had not been granted an opportunity appears to be an afterthought and appears motivated,” Justice Asha observed.
“Further, such a volte face by a member of an Examining Committee who had made a recommendation after viewing and assimilating the film would give rise to a dangerous trend of members reneging on their recommendation and the sanctity placed on the decision of the Examining Committee of the CBFC would stand eroded.”
Drama in the evening
However, around 4.45 p.m. Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan temporarily stayed Justice Asha’s order on a plea moved by the Central government.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBFC, argued that the finding of the single judge that the chairperson’s letter was without jurisdiction was not even under challenge in the petition before the court. He contended that there was urgency since appropriate relief was not granted.
Representing KVN Productions, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that the complaint was filed by a member of the Examining Committee itself and that the urgency arose because the film was scheduled for release Friday.
Ultimately, the division bench stayed the single judge’s direction to grant the UA certificate and posted the matter for further hearing on 21 January.
The film’s release was postponed despite reports suggesting that over two lakh tickets were already sold. The producers are yet to announce a fresh release date. On Friday afternoon, Vijay’s party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), announced the formation of an election manifesto committee ahead of the Tamil Nadu elections scheduled for April–May.
The dispute
KVN Productions commenced pre-production for Jana Nayagan in May 2024, with principal photography beginning in October. Following completion of post-production, the producers applied for certification on 18 December, 2025.
On 22 December, the Regional Officer of the CBFC informed the producers that the Examining Committee unanimously recommended a ‘UA 16+’ certificate, subject to certain excisions and modifications. The petitioner complied with these requirements and submitted a revised version of the film within two days.
While the CBFC verified the modifications, the certification process encountered a “technical limitation” on the online portal, which prevented the final upload of audio descriptions and closed captions.
The matter took a dramatic turn on 5 January, when the petitioner received an email stating that the competent authority decided to refer the film to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
This decision was based on a letter complaint—described as “interesting” by the High Court—alleging that the film could “disturb religious harmony of this great country” and contained problematic portrayals of the armed forces.
The court noted that the referral came as a “total shock” to the producers, especially since the Examining Committee had already viewed and approved the film subject to specific cuts.
Court critique of CBFC’s conduct
Unsparing in her criticism of the complainant’s conduct, Justice Asha noted that the member personally signed the unanimous recommendation on 19 December, 2025. The court remarked that such a reversal would undermine the credibility and sanctity of the CBFC’s certification process.
The court further observed that most of the objections raised in the complaint were already addressed through the cuts directed by the Examining Committee. The claim that objections were not considered was found to be “an afterthought and appears motivated.”
At the heart of the dispute was whether the CBFC chairperson retained the authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee after the Board accepted and communicated the Examining Committee’s recommendation.
Interpreting the 2024 Rules, the court held that the chairperson’s power is not open-ended. Justice Asha ruled that such power “can be exercised only prior to the decision contemplated under Rule 24 being taken and communicated as per Rule 26”.
Since the CBFC had already communicated its decision to grant a UA certificate subject to cuts on 22 December, the court held that the chairperson’s jurisdiction to refer the film for re-review had ceased.
Emphasising that certification “automatically follows” once a producer complies with mandated excisions, the court set aside the chairperson’s decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee, terming it “one without jurisdiction”.
The high court issued a writ of mandamus directing the CBF Regional Officer to issue the censor certificate forthwith, after accounting for the verified excisions submitted by the producer.
That direction, however, now remains in abeyance pending the division bench’s final decision later this month.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: After Karur stampede, TVK’s Vijay on Puducherry stage in limited edition—only for those with QR code