The Madras High Court on January 9 temporarily stayed the single judge’s order delivered earlier in the day, which had directed the CBFC to forthwith grant a U/A certificate for the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring actor turned politican Joseph Vijay.
The film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay, was held up due to a complaint made to the censor board alleging that the contents of the movie hurt religious sentiments. Set to hit theatres on January 9, as per news reports, its release has now been postponed.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, in its order, said: “Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time… one main grievance of the Union of India was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that the letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but the court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency… All said and done, there was no certificate granted to the respondents.”
A single judge of the Madras High Court, Justice P. T. Asha, on Friday (January 9, 2026), allowed a writ petition filed by KVN Productions LLP and ordered the issuance of a U/A 16+ certificate to the Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), however, made an immediate mention before the Chief Justice’s Bench for an urgent hearing of a writ appeal to be filed against the order.
Before the single judge, senior counsel Satish Parasaran, assisted by Vijayan Subramanian, argued that the producers had invested around ₹500 crore in the production of the movie and had also announced that it would be released worldwide on January 9, but all their plans were spoiled because the CBFC conveyed its decision — not to accept the examining committee’s recommendation — to the producers only on January 5.
The judge said: “Therefore, in the light of the fact that the subsequent decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee has been taken after the Board had recommended the grant of certification after carrying out the excisions, the said decision is one without jurisdiction and this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can very well mould the relief by setting aside the decision of the Chairperson uploaded in the e-cinepramaan portal on January 6, issue mandamus to the second respondent to issue the certification as contemplated under Rule 27(1) of the Rules, taking note of the excisions submitted in Form IX on 24.12.2025 forthwith and in tune with Rule 37(6) of the Rules.”
Senior counsel said that the film was submitted for certification as early as December 18 and yet the CBFC chose not to issue the certificate until the last moment. The ASG, counsel for the CBFC, informed the court that one of the five members of the examining committee had sent a complaint to the CBFC Chairman stating that his objections were not considered properly before making the recommendation.
The ASG also stated that the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 empower the Board’s Chairperson to refer a movie to the Revising Committee if he or she is not satisfied with the recommendations made by the examining committee. He said the court could not issue a positive direction to the Board for the issuance of the certificate and that it could only direct the Board to perform its statutory duty within a time limit.
During the hearing on January 9, the Chief Justice orally questioned the CBFC over the urgency to file the appeal on the same day. For context, an urgent motion for appeal was made by the ASG minutes after the single judge’s decision. The appeal was filed soon thereafter and was taken up for hearing based on a mentioning made by the ASG.
He argued that the proceedings before the single judge were hasty and that the Board did not get an opportunity to defend the issue by filing a counter-affidavit.
Referring to the single judge’s order, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said: “Moulding the relief would not include setting aside an order that’s not challenged. Moulding would only be granting something in connection with what has been sought.”
In the post-lunch session, ASG Sundaresan, appearing before a division bench led by the Chief Justice, mentioned the appeal and said: “The order was passed in the morning. We have filed the appeal. The court (single judge) has said that the letter of the Chairperson was without jurisdiction. That was not even challenged in the plea.”
Counsel for the producers, KVN Productions, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, said that the complaint against the film was actually filed by a member of the CBFC committee. At this stage, the Chief Justice asked: “What was the urgency that the respondent (Board) was asked to respond to the plea and the matter was decided within two days?”
Rohatgi said that the movie was to be released on January 9. The Bench told him: “You’re creating an urgency and putting pressure on the court. A false state of urgency is being created by saying that ‘we have to release the movie on such a date’… the 6 January order is not under challenge and yet it has been interfered with. How can you go ahead with the release of the movie without even a certificate on hand? You can’t fix a date for release and put pressure on the system.”
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, also appearing for KVN Productions, read out the earlier order of the examining committee stating that a U/A certificate would be granted subject to modifications. The court observed: “You could have waited for 15 days. You could have waited for some time.”
The court said: “In that view of the matter, there shall be an order of interim stay of the effect and operation of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. List on 20.01.2026, as agreed between the counsel for the parties, for final disposal.”
Congress leaders criticised the CBFC for not granting a censor certificate to Vijay’s film. The Congress is attempting to align with Joseph Vijay’s TVK. The party described the move as an attack on freedom of expression and an instance of the growing politicisation of statutory institutions.
