CBFC Entitled To Time To Reply; ‘Producers Tried To Put Pressure’: Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order Directing U/A Certificate For Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’ Film
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed a single judge order passed earlier in the day directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately grant a U/A certificate to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan issued the interim stay after hearing the CBFC’s appeal, which was urgently moved soon after the single judge verdict.
Dictating the order in open court, the Bench noted the Union of India’s grievance that it was not afforded adequate time to respond before the single judge. “Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents”. The Bench subsequently stayed the single judge’s directions.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice orally questioned the CBFC on the urgency behind filing the appeal on the same day. The appeal was taken up based on an urgent mentioning by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), made minutes after the earlier order.
In response, the ASG argued that the proceedings before the single judge moved too quickly and the Board did not get a chance to file a counter-affidavit. Recounting the timeline, he said: “Petition filed on 5th (January). 6th it came up before the court. We were asked to produce the letter (intimating review of certification). We produced it on 7th. We produced the complaint from Bombay and produced it on 7th in an envelope. Matter was heard on 7th afternoon and orders passed today.”
The ASG also submitted that the single judge had held the CBFC Chairperson’s January 6 letter to be without jurisdiction even though, according to the CBFC, the letter was not specifically challenged and no certiorari was sought. He added that the producers had applied for certification only on December 18 and that the film was sent to the Review (Revising) Committee after considering the issues—information that was communicated to the producer before the writ petition was filed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBFC, contended that the single judge had travelled beyond the prayer sought. “Moulding the relief would not include setting aside an order that's not challenged. Moulding would only be granting something in connection with what has been sought”. He further argued that such an approach could render statutory provisions ineffective.
Appearing for the producers, KVN Productions, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi alleged that the complaint triggering the delay had been filed by a member of the CBFC committee itself. At that point, the Chief Justice asked: “What was the urgency that the respondent (Board) was asked to respond to the plea and the matter was decided within 2 days?”
Rohatgi submitted that the film had been slated for release on January 9. The court, however, remarked that the producers could have waited for the certificate and cautioned against manufacturing urgency. “You're creating an urgency and putting pressure on court. False state of urgency is being created saying that 'we have to release the movie on such date'...6th January order is not under challenge and it has been challenged. How can you go ahead with the release of the movie without even a certificate on hand? You can't fix a date (for release) and put pressure on the system” the court said.
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, also for KVN Productions, referred to the examining committee’s earlier decision indicating that a U/A certificate would be granted subject to certain modifications. The Bench responded that time could have been taken for the process to play out. “You could've waited for 15 days. Could've waited for some time”. The court added that there was not much urgency.
The Chief Justice then indicated an interim arrangement would be made but the earlier order could not operate in the meantime: “We'll pass some order but till that time we can't let this order be given effect to”. The Bench also observed that the CBFC should have been given a proper opportunity to contest the writ petition.
Rohatgi, in turn, described it as “shocking” that a committee member would file the complaint; the Solicitor General replied that only committee members had viewed the film.
Earlier in the day, single judge Justice PT Asha had allowed the producers’ plea and directed the CBFC to forthwith grant U/A certification to the film. Shortly thereafter, CBFC counsel made an urgent mentioning seeking listing of the appeal. In the post-lunch session, the ASG submitted: “Order passed in the morning. We have filed the appeal. The court (single judge) has said that the letter of Chairperson was without jurisdiction. That was not even challenged in the plea”. The Solicitor General also pressed urgency, stating: “There's urgency my lords. The prayer was for A,B, C. But relief granted is D”.
The film’s certification process was reportedly stalled following a complaint alleging that the content hurt religious sentiments. Though it was set to release on January 9, reports indicated the release has been postponed.
In her order, the single judge recorded that the CBFC Chairperson decided to send the film for review after receiving a complaint from one committee member claiming his objections were not considered, and held that complaint to be an afterthought. “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 court observed.
The single judge also noted that the examining committee, through the Chairperson, had already informed the producers that a “UA” certificate would be granted subject to specified excisions/modifications, and that this was communicated under Rule 26 on December 22, 2025. The order held that the Chairperson’s authority to send the film to review ceased once the decision was communicated. “A mere perusal of the above would clearly show that the Authority viz., the Chairperson has decided on behalf of the Board to take further action in conformity with the unanimous recommendation of the Examining Committee. Therefore, on and from 22.12.2025 the power of the Chairperson to exercise his power under Rule 25 came to an end. Therefore, the decision of the Chairperson which has been uploaded only on 06.01.2026 is without jurisdiction,” the court said.
The single judge further held that once the Board had conveyed that UA certification would follow after the excisions, certification should issue automatically upon compliance. “Further, the letter dated 22.12.2025 clearly spells out the recommendation of the Examining Committee as accepted by the Board which was “to grant UA certification subject to excision”. Therefore, once the excisions are done the certification automatically follows,” the court said. Summing up, the order added: “Exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction since the power of chairperson to send for review stood abdicated after he, on behalf of committee informed that UA certificate would be granted subject to incisions”.
According to the producers, they received a December 22 communication from the regional office stating that the examining committee recommended UA certification subject to modifications, which were carried out and the film was resubmitted. They further claimed that on December 29 the regional office indicated UA certification would be granted, but on January 5 an email said the competent authority had decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee under the Cinematograph Certification Rules based on the complaint.
The appeal is next listed for hearing on January 21.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr.Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India; assisted by Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, Sr. Panel Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel; Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel; for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and The Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification Vs KVN Productions LLP
Case Number: C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava; Justice G.Arul Murugan
