Jana Nayagan vs CBFC: Madras High Court Reserves Order on Vijay Film’s Release
The fate of actor :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}’s final film :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1} remains uncertain after the :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2} reserved its order following a detailed hearing involving the film’s producers and the :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3} (CBFC).
What Happened During the Hearing
The hearing took place on Wednesday afternoon, where legal representatives for KVN Productions and the CBFC presented opposing arguments before Justice PT Asha. After listening to both sides, the court chose to reserve its judgment, without specifying when the final order would be delivered.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that the complaint which led to the delay in certification was filed by a member of the CBFC’s own examining committee. This disclosure raised questions about internal procedures and transparency within the certification process.
CBFC’s Stand on the Certification Delay
Appearing for the CBFC, the Additional Solicitor General informed the court that the Chairperson of the censor board had personally decided to halt the certification process. According to the CBFC, the Chairperson holds the authority to seek a review of a film even after it has been screened by the examining committee.
The CBFC argued that certain visual elements in the film, including the use of defence-related symbols, required expert consultation. Based on the complaint received, the Chairperson directed that the certification be paused and recommended that the film be reviewed by a revising committee.
The court was told that producers were informed of this decision in early January and that the update was reflected on the e-Cinepramaan portal shortly thereafter.
Court Raises Concerns Over Process
Justice PT Asha repeatedly questioned how a film that had reportedly received a UA 16+ recommendation earlier could suddenly face objections at a later stage. The judge also observed that complaints emerging from within the CBFC system were “not healthy” and sought clarity on why the producers were not informed sooner.
The CBFC maintained that the intervention occurred before the certificate was formally issued and therefore did not amount to government interference.
Producers Challenge CBFC’s Actions
Senior counsel representing KVN Productions argued that the communication regarding the deferment did not come directly from the CBFC Chairperson but was routed through the CEO. The producers questioned how the objection of a single committee member could stall the entire certification process.
It was also pointed out that the complaint was filed only after the examining committee had already recorded its recommendations. The producers argued that this complaint was not reflected in official portal records and that they had already implemented all the cuts and changes suggested by the committee.
Dispute Over Alleged Sentiment Concerns
Another key issue raised during the hearing involved claims that the film could hurt the sentiments of a minority community. The producers’ counsel questioned the basis of this objection, noting that no representative from that community was part of the examining committee.
They argued that the CBFC must function strictly within the legal framework and cannot introduce fresh objections without proper procedural backing.
What Lies Ahead
With the Madras High Court reserving its order, the release of Jana Nayagan now depends on the court’s final decision. The case has sparked broader discussions around film certification, internal accountability within the CBFC, and the balance between regulation and creative freedom.
