Chennai: The legal tug-of-war over the certification of Vijay's much-awaited political thriller, Jana Nayagan, reached a critical juncture today as the Madras High Court reserved its orders on the appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard extensive arguments from both sides before closing the proceedings. The Bench is now set to decide whether to uphold the Single Judge's order—which directed the immediate grant of a 'U/A' certificate—or to allow the CBFC to refer the film to a Revising Committee.
The core of today's hearing revolved around the procedural validity of the CBFC Chairperson's decision to halt the certification process after initially proposing cuts.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for the producers (KVN Productions), argued that the Chairperson, having already decided on behalf of the Board to certify the film (subject to cuts), could not "go back" on that decision based on a subsequent complaint. He contended that the producers were kept in the dark and not provided with relevant documents regarding the sudden reversal.
"When the Chairman has already decided, on behalf of the Board, to certify the film, he could not have sent it back."
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, also representing the producers, emphasized that the "goalpost cannot be moved" once the certification process has effectively concluded.
Countering these claims, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan argued that the Board possesses suo motu powers to recall a decision if it receives information warranting a review. He highlighted a specific complaint regarding the depiction of Armed Forces, arguing that such sensitive portrayals might require expert consultation which the initial committee may have overlooked.
The ASG asserted:
"It is not correct to say that a member cannot give a complaint at a later point... While showing armed force, protocol should be followed. It may not be decided by the committee alone."
He further argued that the initial communication regarding 14 cuts was merely an "intermediary decision" and not a final binding order, thus leaving room for the Chairperson to intervene.
With orders reserved, the film's release hangs in the balance. If the Division Bench dismisses the CBFC's appeal, the Board will be forced to issue the certificate immediately, potentially paving the way for a Republic Day release. However, if the Court sides with the CBFC, the film will have to undergo the Revising Committee process, which could lead to further delays and potentially more cuts.