The ruling marks the latest turn in a legal tussle that has delayed the release of Jana Nayagan, billed as Vijay’s final film before he becomes a full-time politician.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday set aside a single judge’s order that had directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a U/A certificate to Jana Nayagan, the much-anticipated film starring actor-politician Vijay, and sent the matter back for fresh consideration, holding that principles of natural justice had not been followed.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan ruled that the censor board had not been given adequate opportunity to defend its decision before the earlier order was passed. The court directed that the case be heard afresh by the single judge after granting the CBFC time to file its response. The film’s producer, KVN Productions LLP, was also given liberty to amend its Writ petition.
The Bench observed that the allegations raised in the complaint against the film were “of serious nature”, prompting the CBFC chairperson to refer the movie to a revising committee. Given the seriousness of those objections, the court said, the single judge ought to have afforded the board an opportunity to present its case.
It further held that the earlier order had gone into the merits of the dispute even though there had been no specific prayer challenging the chairperson’s decision to send the film for review. The producers were asked to amend their plea and properly contest that order.
“The single bench ought not to have gone into the merits of the decision without granting sufficient opportunity to the CBFC,” the Division Bench noted, effectively reopening the certification process.
The ruling marks the latest turn in a legal tussle that has delayed the release of Jana Nayagan, billed as Vijay’s final film before he becomes a full-time politician. The producers had approached the High Court after the CBFC withheld certification, despite earlier communication that a U/A certificate would be granted subject to cuts.
According to the production house, all 27 excisions and modifications recommended by the examining committee had been carried out. The producers argued that the subsequent referral to a revising committee — based on a complaint from one of the examining committee members — amounted to an unlawful reopening of a process that had effectively concluded.
The CBFC, represented by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, maintained that the complaint flagged concerns that certain scenes could hurt religious sentiments and portray the armed forces improperly, justifying the referral for further scrutiny.
Earlier this month, a single judge had ruled in favour of the producers and ordered certification forthwith, describing the CBFC chairperson’s action as beyond jurisdiction. That order was promptly stayed by the Division Bench, which criticised the “urgency” created around the scheduled release date and said the board must be given a fair chance to respond.
With Tuesday’s decision, the dispute returns to the single judge for a fresh hearing, leaving the film without certification and its release timeline uncertain.
Curated by Aisha Patel
