Jana Nayagan release remains in limbo: High Court clears Vijay’s film, but CBFC rushes to appeal

The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately grant a U/A 16+ certificate to Jana Nayagan, the upcoming Tamil film starring actor-politician Vijay, setting aside the board’s decision to send the film to a revising committee days before its scheduled release.

Pronouncing the order, Justice P T Asha held that the CBFC chairperson’s decision to reopen the certification process based on a complaint was “without jurisdiction” and warned that entertaining such objections at an advanced stage would give rise to a “dangerous trend”.

The film, produced by KVN Productions LLP and slated for release on January 9, had been held up after the CBFC referred it to a revising committee, citing a complaint that alleged certain scenes hurt religious sentiments and raised concerns over the portrayal of the defence forces. The referral came after an examining committee of the CBFC had already recommended a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to specific excisions and modifications.

The court noted that the examining committee had communicated on December 22 that it would recommend certification once the suggested changes were carried out. The producer submitted that all the modifications were duly made and the film was resubmitted, following which the regional office of the CBFC informed on December 29 that the movie would be granted a U/A certificate.

However, on January 5, the production house received an email from the CBFC’s regional office stating that the “competent authority” had decided to refer the film to a revising committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024, based on a complaint.

During the hearing earlier this week, it emerged that the complaint had been made not by a member of the public, but by one of the five members of the examining committee itself, who claimed that his objections had not been recorded before the committee recommended certification.

In her order, Justice Asha rejected the CBFC’s justification. The court held that once the modifications recommended by the examining committee were carried out, the grant of the certificate would “automatically follow”. The judge ruled that the power of the chairperson to send the film for review stood “abdicated” after the CBFC, on behalf of the committee, informed the producer that a U/A certificate would be issued subject to compliance with the excisions.

“The exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction,” the court said, adding that reopening the process on such grounds would undermine the statutory framework governing film certification. Since the order referring the film to the revising committee lacked jurisdiction, the court said it could invoke its inherent powers to modify the relief sought.

Accordingly, the HC set aside the CBFC chairperson’s letter sending Jana Nayagan to the revising committee and directed the board to issue the U/A certificate forthwith.

The petition was argued by Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, assisted by advocate Vijayan Subramaniam, for KVN Productions LLP, represented by Venkata K Narayana. The CBFC was represented by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, who had contended that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the chairperson was not bound by the opinion of the examining committee and could order a review either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint.

Countering this, the production house argued that a committee member could not convert himself into a complainant and that the law clearly distinguished between internal recommendations and external complaints. Once a majority decision had been taken by the examining committee and it was submitted, the dissent of a single member could not invalidate it.

Shortly after the order was pronounced, the Additional Solicitor General made an urgent mention before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, seeking an early hearing of a writ appeal against Justice Asha’s ruling. The Chief Justice indicated that the request would be considered, with the appeal likely to be taken up later on Friday or on Monday.