Thalapathy
Vijay’s last film, Jana Nayagan, might miss its January 9 release. The Tamil political drama is stuck as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) withheld and delayed the certificate. On January 7, the Madras High Court heard KVN Productions’ plea. The makers of Jana Nayagan claimed that they adhered to the CBFC’s recommendations and were in compliance. Despite this, the board held the certification, causing a delay in sending the final prints to theatres. On Wednesday, the Madras High Court questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on its decision to reopen the certification process of Jana Nayagan.
Madras High Court reacts to CBFC withholding Jana Nayagan certificate
According to LiveLaw, the bench led by
Justice PT Asha noted that the Examining Committee's objections had been considered earlier, excisions were made, and objectionable words were muted, yet the CBFC chose to stall issuance of the certificate. The court observed, “Now the only ground on which you want to review the movie is based on the complaint, which on the face of it is not maintainable because all objections raised in the complaint have already been dealt with.” Justice PT Asha further said, “You're a responsible body. When the entire exercise of revision is based on a complaint, and the complaint only says that objections have not been considered.”
CBFC representative defends
As per LiveLaw,
CBFC’s representative, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, stated that the Chairperson was not bound by the decision of the Examining Committee and could order a review even after the committee had viewed the film. He further said that he submitted that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the Chairperson could differ from the committee's opinion either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint. Sundaresan said, “Even if the letter was not there, the Chairperson is not bound by the decision of the committee. According to him, if after examination and opinion, even one committee member raised objections, the Chairperson could consider those objections and send the film to the Revising Committee. “So after the Chairperson takes suo motu action, there is no question of recommendation by the committee? The recommendations about cuts and modifications do not take place?” Justice Asha questioned. In addition, the court questioned CBFC for not informing the producers of
Jana Nayagan about the decision to send the film for review. The ASG replied that the Chairperson of CBFC had instructed the Regional Office to put the process on hold and claimed that the producers were informed on January 5, 2026. LiveLaw reported that he also submitted that under the Rules, the CBFC had 15 days to examine a film and 20 days to constitute a Revising Committee once a decision to review was taken. “When there is a two-tier system, we should not be curtailed from taking it up with the second tier,” the ASG said.
Jana Nayagan producer's legal rep argues
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, who appeared before the Madras High Court on behalf of KVN Productions, said, “After seeing the movie, the member could have only made recommendations. The member has now become the complainant. I don't know how that happens. Even if one member has objections, it is still a 4:1 majority. How does the opinion of one member become the basis for review?” LiveLaw mentioned that Parasaran submitted that Rule 24 could be invoked only when no majority decision had been reached, which was not the case here.
Jana Nayagan postponed?
According to reports, the Madras High Court has reserved the order and the final verdict is due on January 9. This indicates the film's release date might be changed at the last minute.
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-17677905652229457.webp)
/images/ppid_a911dc6a-image-176778843378298429.webp)
