‘Jana Nayagan’ release row: Madras High Court stays order to grant censor certificate to Vijay-starrer

It was a slip between the cup and the lip for actor Vijay’s much-anticipated last movie Jana Nayagan as a single judge of the Madras High Court, on Friday (January 9, 2026), directed Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue U/A 16+ certificate forthwith, but the first Division Bench of the court that heard an appeal stayed the order within a few hours of its pronouncement.

The first Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan granted the interim stay after accepting Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan’s request for urgent hearing of the appeal. The Bench felt the single judge ought to have granted time for the CBFC to file its counter affidavit before passing orders on the writ petition filed by the production house.

When it was brought to the notice of the Bench that emergent orders were required in the writ petition since KVN Productions LLP had decided to release the movie on January 9, the Chief Justice said: “You cannot create a false state of emergency and put pressure on the court to pass orders. How can you go ahead with the screening of the movie without any certificate in hand?

Though senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Satish Parasaran for the production firm attempted to convince the Division Bench about the urgency involved in the issue, the Chief Justice’s Bench agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also representing CBFC, that the writ petition ought not to have been allowed within two days of filing and without giving proper opportunity to the board to defend itself.

Earlier, Mr. Sundaresan told the court the writ petition was filed on January 6 and heard on the same day after the grant of a lunch motion. Thereafter, the CBFC was directed to produce the records on January 7 when the single judge reserved orders and pronounced them on January 9. He said no opportunity was given for the board to file a detailed counter affidavit rebutting the claims made by the production house.

In her order on the writ petition, Justice P.T. Asha had pointed out a five-member examining committee of the CBFC had watched the movie on December 19, 2025 and all the members had uananimously recommended issuance of UA 16+ certificate to it after listing out the excisions required to be made. This decision was communicated to the production house on December 22.

The producers accepted the recommendation, carried out all the required excisions and re-submitted the edited version on December 24. Subsequently, the production house was informed on December 29 that the Board had decided to issue U/A certificate. However, on January 5, in a sudden volte face, the Regional Officer of CBFC claimed the chairman had decided to refer the movie to a revising committee.

The reason cited for such a decision taken by the chairman was a complaint received regarding the portrayal of scenes related to the armed forces in the movie but the absence of any expert member on the subject in the examining committee. When Justice Asha wanted to know who was the complainant, she was told it was one of the five members of the examining committee who had lodged the complaint.

Expressing surprise, the judge wondered how could the member lodge such a complaint after the producers had carried out all the changes that were suggested by him after watching the movie. “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,” the judge wrote in her order.

She also went on to state: “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.”