In a significant development for the Tamil film industry and followers of actor-politician Vijay, the Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 27) set aside a single-judge order that had directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a ‘U/A’ certificate to the movie Jana Nayagan.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan ruled that the previous order was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The court has now sent the case back to the single judge for a fresh hearing, ensuring that the CBFC is given a proper opportunity to file its response and defend its decision.

The legal tussle began when the movie’s producer, KVN Productions, approached the court against the CBFC for delaying the film’s certification. Jana Nayagan, which is widely reported to be Actor Vijay’s final film before his full-scale entry into politics, was originally slated for a Pongal release on January 9.

According to the producers:

The film was screened for the Examining Committee (EC) in December.
The board informed them that a ‘U/A’ certificate would be granted provided certain cuts and modifications were made.
The producers carried out these changes and expected the certificate to follow.

However, in a sudden turn of events, the CBFC Chairperson decided to refer the movie to a Revising Committee for a second look. This decision was reportedly based on a complaint from a member of the original Examining Committee, alleging that certain scenes could hurt religious sentiments and portrayed the Indian armed forces in a negative light.

On January 9, a single-judge bench ruled in favor of the producers. The judge criticized the CBFC’s move to send the film for review after already indicating that a certificate would be issued. The single judge held that once the Examining Committee had made its recommendation, the Chairperson’s decision to reopen the matter based on a post-facto complaint was "without jurisdiction" (beyond their legal authority).

The CBFC was directed to issue the certificate immediately. However, within hours, the CBFC moved the Division Bench, which stayed the single judge’s order, citing that the Board was not given enough time to file a formal reply (counter-affidavit).

In its detailed judgment today, the Division Bench noted several procedural lapses in the single judge’s handling of the case:

Violation of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that the CBFC was not given a fair chance to explain why the movie was sent for review. The Bench noted that "natural justice principles were not followed" as the Board was not allowed to file a counter-affidavit.
Serious Allegations: The Bench observed that the complaints against the movie—specifically regarding religious harmony and the depiction of the military—were of a "serious nature." Given these stakes, the court felt it was essential for the CBFC to be heard.
Challenging the Right Order: The court pointed out a technical legal flaw: the producers had asked for a "Mandamus" (a direction to issue the certificate) but had not officially challenged the Chairperson’s administrative order that sent the movie to the Revising Committee. The Bench has now given KVN Productions the liberty to amend their petition to challenge that specific order.

During the hearings, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, argued that the Board is the ultimate authority and is not strictly bound by the preliminary opinion of an advisory panel if serious concerns are raised later.

On the other side, Senior Advocates Satish Parasaran and Pradeep Rai, appearing for the producers, argued that the Board was acting inconsistently. They pointed out that the scenes mentioned in the complaint had already been edited or deleted. They contended that sending the film to a Revising Committee was a "redundant exercise" intended to delay the film’s release.

The "fresh hearing" direction means the case is effectively starting over at the single-judge level.

For the Producers: They will now amend their legal challenge to specifically target the Chairperson’s review order.
For the CBFC: They will file a detailed response explaining the necessity of the Revising Committee.
For the Fans: The release date of Jana Nayagan remains uncertain. While the High Court’s order is not a ban, the lack of a censor certificate means the film cannot hit screens just yet.

The Division Bench also took the opportunity to remark on the "artificial urgency" created by production houses who announce release dates before obtaining a final certificate, noting that such pressure should not be placed on the judicial system.

Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Case No: W.A.No.94 of 2026