7 hours ago
8
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 27, 2026) allowed a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside a single judge’s January 9, 2026, order which had directed the board to issue U/A 16+ certification for actor Vijay’s much-awaited final movie Jana Nayagan.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the single judge ought not to have passed such orders without affording proper opportunity to the CBFC to file a counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by the production house KVN Productions LLP.
The Bench also held the writ petition was not maintainable at all, as it had sought a mandamus seeking a direction to the CBFC to issue the certificate instead of seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the CBFC chairman on January 6, 2026, for referring the movie to a nine-member revising committee.
However, instead of dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench granted an opportunity to the production firm to amend its prayer and directed the Registry to restore the writ petition and list it for fresh hearing before the single judge if the production house chooses to utilise the opportunity granted by the Bench.
“If the respondents suitably amends, the writ petition, the learned single judge may afford reasonable opportunity to the CBFC to file a counter affidavit and thereafter, the parties may pray for expeditious disposal of the writ petition on its own merits,” the Division Bench wrote.
Moreover, not wanting to go into the merits of the case, the Division Bench said: “We make it clear that it will open for the learned the single judge to decide whether the CBFC chairman’s reference was in accordance with law or not.”
Stating that the reason for the CBFC chairman having referred the movie to the revising committee was a serious complaint received by him regarding the absence of a defence expert in the movie, the judges said, this was all the more a reason for the single judge to have given a proper opportunity to the board to file a counter affidavit.
What is the case about?
According to the producers, the pre-production work for the movie had begun as early as May 2024 and the puja ceremony was held on October 4, 2024. The shooting commenced on October 5, 2024, and the entire post production work was completed on December 15, 2025. The audio launch was held in Malaysia on December 21, 2025.
In the meantime, the production house filed an application for censor certificate before the CBFC on December 18, 2025. The application was filed through the e-cinepramaan portal under the tatkal process. Thereafter, an examining committee, comprising five members chosen randomly from a list maintained by the Board, was constituted.
The examining committee watched the movie at a preview theatre on December 19, 2025, and unanimously recommended the issuance of a U/A 16+ certificate subject to the producer carrying out the excisions listed out by the members. The recommendation made by the examining committee was placed before the Board for its approval.
On December 22, 2025, the CBFC Chennai Regional Officer wrote to the production house stating that “the Board” had decided to accept the recommendation of the examining committee and issue the U/A 16+ certificate if the excisions were carried out. The production house chose to accept the U/A 16+ certificate and not to go on appeal to the revising committee for a U certificate.
The excisions, listed out by the examining committee, were carried out and the movie was re-submitted on December 24, 2025. However, there was a lull for long until the CBFC Regional Officer on January 5, 2025, informed the producer that the CBFC chairman had decided to refer the movie to a revising committee following a complaint received by him.
The producer was not informed about the details of the complainant but for being told that the complaint was related to certain visuals having the alleged effect of disturbing religious harmony and the absence of a defence expert in the examining committee though the movie had several references to the Indian Army.
Immediately, the production house moved an urgent writ petition before the High Court on January 6, 2026, and sought a direction to the CBFC to issue the U/A 16+ certificate, as recommended by the examining committee, within 24 hours. Justice P.T. Asha heard the matter and directed the CBFC to produce all relevant records on January 7, 2026.
On the same day, the judge heard the arguments advanced on behalf the production house as well as the CBFC and reserved her orders, which were pronounced on January 9, 2026.
After perusing the records, the judge found that it was one of the members of the examining committee who had lodged a complaint with the CBFC chairman though that member himself had listed out as many as 10 excisions, regarding his complaint about religious harmony, in Form VIII after watching the movie in a preview theatre on December 19. The producer had carried out all those excisions.
Insofar as the complaint regarding the absence of a defence expert in the examining committee was concerned, the single judge found that the complainant had not made any mention regarding that in Form VIII. Therefore, the single judge concluded that the complaint appeared to be an “afterthought and motivated.”
Though the CBFC argued that the chairman’s decision, uploaded on the e-cinepramaan portal on January 6 had not been challenged by the producer who had only sought a direction simpliciter to issue a U/A 16+ certificate, the judge moulded the relief, quashed the January 6 decision of the CBFC chairman, and ordered issuance of U/A 16+ certificate forthwith.
Within a few hours after she pronounced the orders on January 9, the CBFC moved an urgent writ appeal before the first Division Bench complaining that the single judge had passed the orders in a hasty manner without granting the board an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and obtained an interim stay against her order.
Thereafter, the writ appeal was argued at length on January 20, when the Division Bench reserved its orders and decided to pronounce it on Tuesday.
English (US) ·