Madras High Court Stays Order Directing CBFC To Grant Censor Certificate To Actor Vijay Movie 'Jana Nayagan'

The Madras High Court has stayed the order of a single judge, passed today, directing CBFC to grant a censor certificate to actor-turned-politician Vijay-starrer 'Jana Nayagan.'

On Friday, January 9, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) urgently requested the Madras High Court to list its appeal against a single judge’s order. That order directed the board to immediately grant a U/A certificate to the movie Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan granted the stay after the grounds for appeal were outlined by the CBFC.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan appeared for the CBFC, while Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the KVN Productions. 

Minutes after the ruling of the Single Bench, Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, appeared before a bench led by the Chief Justice. He requested an urgent hearing to appeal Justice Asha’s decision.

The film was originally scheduled to hit theatres today. Due to the legal battle and the initial withholding of the certificate, news reports confirmed the release was postponed.

Factual Background

Before the Single Bench, a writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the CBFC to grant a Censor Certificate in the name of the petitioner, being the producer of the film “Jana Nayagan” under the UA 16+ category, as per the CBFC's communication within a period of 24 hours. The lead cast actors for the above film are, Vijay, Prakash Raj and other leading artists from the South Indian Film Industry. 

On December 18, 2025, the Petitioner applied for certification for Jana Nayagan. Following a review, the Examining Committee recommended a UA 16+ certificate subject to specific cuts. The petitioner complied, and by December 29, the CBFC confirmed the modifications were verified, and the certificate would be issued.

The process then stalled due to technical issues on the CBFC portal regarding audio descriptions. Despite the petitioner’s repeated reminders, the board failed to issue the certificate. Instead, on January 5, 2026, the CBFC unexpectedly referred the film to a Revising Committee following an undisclosed complaint regarding religious sentiments and the armed forces. The petitioner moved the court, arguing that once the committee had approved the film and cuts were made, the board could not legally restart the review process.

Contention of the Parties

The petitioner, KVN Productions, contends that the CBFC had already concluded its review process after the Examining Committee recommended a UA 16+ certificate on December 22, 2025. They argued that once they complied with all directed excisions and modifications, which the board verified on December 29, the certification should have been issued automatically. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the Chairperson lacks the legal authority to refer the film to a Revising Committee after such a decision has been reached, especially when the decision was prompted by an undisclosed complaint that was not shared with them.

ASG submitted before the Court that, without seeking to quash the order, the petitioner cannot seek the issue of a certification. He submitted that the exercise of his powers under Rule 25 by the Chairperson is one without jurisdiction since the powers of the Chairperson to refer the film to a Revising Committee stood abdicated as soon as he, on behalf of the Board, had decided to accept the recommendation of the Examining Committee. Therefore, his decision to refer the film to the Revising Committee cannot be sustained, he said.

Observation 

The Single Bench comprising Justice P.T. Asha said, "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. 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."

It was observed, "A reading of Rule 25 indicates that this power can be exercised suomotu or on the request of the applicant. The suomotu power has to be exercised by the Chairperson as soon as the record of the recommendation is received under Rule 23 (14) and before the Board takes action under Rule 24. Therefore, even if the argument of the learned ASG that the suomotu power can be exercised based on the complaint is accepted, such a power should be exercised before the decision under Rule 24 is taken and communicated under Rule 26. In the case on hand the very complaint is dated after the decision communicated on 22.12.2025."

The single bench orderd, "Therefore, in the light of the fact that the subsequent decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee has been taken after the Board had recommended the grant of certification after carrying out the excisions, the said decision is one without jurisdiction and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can very well mould the relief by setting aside the decision of the Chairperson uploaded in the e-cinepramaan portal on 06.01.2026 and issue mandamus to the 2nd respondent to issue the certification as contemplated under Rule 27(1) of the Rules taking note of the excisions submitted in Form IX on 24.12.2025 forthwith and in tune with Rule 37(6) of the rules."

Accordingly, now the writ appeal is listed before the Division Bench on January 21, 2026. 

Cause Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and Anr. [W.P.No.380 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.445 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner/Respondent: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Satish Parasaran, and Advocate Vijayan Subramanian

Respondents/Appellants: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Assistant Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan and Senior Panel Cousnel A.R.Sakthivel.

Click here to read/download the Judgment

With PTI Inputs.