‘Jana Nayagan’ censor row: Madras High Court reserves orders on CBFC’s writ appeal

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, on Tuesday (January 20, 2026), reserved its orders on a writ appeal filed by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) against a single judge’s order directing it to issue U/A 16+ certificate for actor Vijay’s most-anticipated last movie Jana Nayagan.

The first Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan deferred their verdict after hearing the arguments advanced by Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan for the CBFC and senior counsel Satish Parasaran, assisted by Vijayan Subramanian, for KVN Productions LLP.

The Bench completed hearing the marathon arguments on the writ appeal on Tuesday since the Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the interim stay granted to the single judge’s order by the Bench on January 9, had requested it to make an endeavour to take an early decision on the appeal.

The production firm had filed a writ petition before a single judge of the High Court on January 6 claiming that the CBFC’s examining committee had watched the movie on December 19 and recommended issuance of U/A 16+ certification if the producer agrees to carries out certain excisions.

All those excisions were carried out and the movie was re-submitted on December 24, 2025. However, acting on the basis of a complaint sent by one of the five members of the examining committee regarding the absence of an expert from the Army in the committee, the CBFC put the process on hold on December 29.

Thereafter, a decision was taken on January 5, 2026 to refer the movie to a nine-member revising committee and the decision of the CBFC chairman was uploaded on the ‘e-cine pramaan’ portal on January 6 when the the writ petition was heard by the single judge who ordered production of records on January 7.

After the perusing the records on January 7, the single judge passed orders on January 9 quashing the CBFC chairman’s decision and directed the board to issue the U/A 16+ certificate forthwith. Immediately, the CBFC filed an urgent writ appeal before the Division Bench and obtained an interim stay.

Though the production house took the interim stay order on appeal to the Supreme Court, the latter refused to interfere with the order and requested the Division Bench to make an endeavour to dispose of the writ appeal at the earliest.

Single judge’s reasoning

In her order on the writ petition, Justice P.T. Asha had pointed out the five-member examining committee of the CBFC had watched the movie on December 19, 2025 and all the members had uananimously recommended issuance of U/A 16+ certificate to it after listing out the excisions required to be made. This decision was also communicated to the production house on December 22.

The producers accepted the recommendation, carried out all the required excisions and re-submitted the edited version on December 24. Subsequently, the production house was informed on December 29 that the Board had decided to issue U/A certificate. However, on January 5, in a sudden volte face, the Regional Officer of CBFC claimed the chairman had decided to refer the movie to a revising committee.

The reason cited for such a decision taken by the chairman was a complaint received regarding the portrayal of scenes related to the armed forces in the movie but the absence of any expert member on the subject in the examining committee. When Justice Asha wanted to know who was the complainant, she was told it was one of the five members of the examining committee who had lodged the complaint.

Expressing surprise, the judge wondered how could the member lodge such a complaint after the producers had carried out all the changes that were suggested by him after watching the movie. “It is therefore crystal clear that the complainant’s grievance that he had not been granted an opportunity appears to be an afterthought and appears motivated,” the judge wrote in her order.

She also went on to state: “Such a volte face by a member of an examining committee, who had made a recommendation after viewing and assimilating the film, would give rise to a dangerous trend of members reneging on their recommendation and the sanctity placed on the decision of the examining committee of the CBFC would stand eroded.”