The Madras High Court on Friday (9 January 2026) directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to forthwith grant a UA certificate to the upcoming Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. According to reports, the film’s release, which had earlier been scheduled for the same day, has been postponed.
Pronouncing the order, Justice PT Asha observed, “After examining materials, it is Crystal clear that the complainant’s grievance appears to be an after thought.” The court cautioned that entertaining such complaints would give rise to a “dangerous trend.”
The High Court further held that a letter uploaded by the CBFC Chairperson on 6 January 2026 was without jurisdiction. It noted that once the modifications recommended by the Examining Committee were carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow. The court stated: “Exercise of power by 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.”
The court added that since the order was without jurisdiction, it could modify the relief using its inherent powers.
The bench had reserved orders on Wednesday, 7 January 2026, after hearing Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran for the production house and Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for the CBFC.
The film’s producer, KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, approached the High Court alleging that the film’s certification was being unreasonably withheld and delayed, which would cause massive financial loss to the producers.
It was submitted that on 22 December 2026, the CBFC’s regional office informed the producers that the Examining Committee had recommended granting a UA certificate, subject to certain excisions and modifications. The production house stated that these changes were carried out, and the film was resubmitted, following which, on 29 December 2026, the regional office informed that a UA certificate would be issued.
However, on 5 January 2026, the regional office allegedly sent an email stating that the competent authority had decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, based on a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and its portrayal of the armed forces. The producers contended that this reopening was contrary to law.
Opposing the plea, the CBFC argued that the Chairperson was not bound by the Examining Committee’s decision and could order a review even after the committee had viewed the film. It was 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. The CBFC further argued that if even one committee member raised objections, the Chairperson could consider those objections and refer the film to the Revising Committee.
Countering this, the production house submitted that a committee member could not convert themselves into a complainant. It argued that the law draws a distinction between recommendations and complaints and that once a majority decision is taken by the Examining Committee, the dissenting opinion of one member could not invalidate it.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
