MADRAS HIGH COURT STAYS CBFC U/A CERTIFICATE ORDER FOR VIJAY'S 'JANA NAYAGAN' AMID ALLEGATIONS OF PRODUCER PRESSURE:

The Madras High Court, on January 9, 2026, temporarily stayed a single judge's order issued earlier that day directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to forthwith grant a U/A certificate to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim stay while hearing an urgent appeal filed by the CBFC against Justice P.T. Asha's ruling.

The bench observed that the Union of India (through CBFC) had not been given sufficient time to respond to the producers' writ petition, and one key grievance was that the single judge had quashed a January 6 letter from the CBFC Chairperson referring the film for review, even though that letter had not been specifically challenged in the petition. The respondents argued there was no real urgency justifying such a swift decision, and no certificate had ultimately been issued to them. The court emphasized that the CBFC should have been provided a proper opportunity to file a counter and defend its position.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned the CBFC on the urgency of filing the appeal the same day, noting that an urgent mention was made by the Additional Solicitor General minutes after the single judge's pronouncement. The ASG explained that the proceedings before the single judge were hasty: the petition was filed on January 5, taken up on January 6, records including the Chairperson's letter and a complaint from Bombay were produced on January 7 in an envelope, the matter was heard that afternoon, and orders were passed on January 9 without allowing a detailed counter affidavit. The ASG contended that the single judge found the Chairperson's January 6 letter without jurisdiction, yet no certiorari was sought against it. He added that the producers applied for certification only on December 18, 2025, and after issues were considered, the film was sent to a Review Committee, communicated before the writ petition.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBFC, argued that moulding relief could not extend to setting aside an unchallenged order, and doing so would render provisions of the Cinematograph Act redundant. Representing producers KVN Productions, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted that the complaint against the film came from a CBFC committee member. The Chief Justice queried the urgency imposed on the board to respond within two days. Rohatgi noted the film's planned release on January 9, but the court orally remarked that producers could have waited for the certificate, accusing them of creating a false sense of urgency by fixing a release date without one in hand and thereby pressuring the system. The bench stated that producers were attempting to pressure the court and the certification process.

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, also for the producers, read out the earlier examining committee order recommending U/A certification subject to modifications. The court responded that producers could have waited 15 days or more, reiterating there was not much urgency. The Chief Justice indicated that an order would be passed but, until then, the single judge's directive could not take effect, stressing the need for the authority to have a fair chance to object.

For context, Justice P.T. Asha had earlier held that the CBFC Chairperson's decision to refer the film for review was without jurisdiction, as the power to do so ended once the examining committee's unanimous recommendation for U/A certification (subject to excisions) was communicated to producers on December 22, 2025, and complied with. The court viewed the subsequent complaint as an afterthought and motivated, warning that allowing such reversals would erode the sanctity of the examining committee's decision and the certification process. Once modifications were made, certification should automatically follow.

The film's release, originally set for January 9 amid Pongal festivities, has been postponed due to the ongoing dispute triggered by a complaint alleging hurt to religious sentiments. The division bench's appeal is now listed for further hearing on January 21, 2026.