Madras HC overturns order for immediate censor clearance to Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’

Chennai: In a major blow to the makers of actor Vijay’s political drama Jana Nayagan, the Madras High Court Division Bench on Tuesday scrapped a single-judge order directing the immediate issuance of censor certification. The decision allows the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revisit the matter, likely delaying the film’s release further.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan, ruled that the earlier interim order improperly delved into the merits of the dispute. A writ court, while considering an interlocutory plea, ought not to have examined the substance of the complaints raised against the film’s content, the judges observed. They declared the single judge’s approach legally flawed, set aside the order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The court also permitted the original petitioner to amend their writ petition.

This comes after the Division Bench had stayed the single-judge order on January 9, citing insufficient time for the Union government’s response. On January 15, the Supreme Court declined to intervene on a producer’s plea challenging the stay and certification delays.

Jana Nayagan, billed as Vijay’s final film before his full-time entry into politics, was originally slated for a Pongal release on January 9. Producer KVN Productions approached the High Court, alleging undue delays by the CBFC despite full compliance with suggested modifications.

The certification application was filed on December 18, 2025. After a hearing, the Examining Committee recommended a ‘UA 16+’ rating on December 22, flagging concerns over violence, fight sequences, gory visuals, and brief religious references. Producers implemented the required excisions and resubmitted the revised version on December 24, with verification completed by December 29, leading to assurances of certification.

However, a January 5, 2026 email referred the film to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Rules. The referral stemmed from a complaint, later revealed to be from an Examining Committee member, alleging improper portrayal of defence forces and potential hurt to religious sentiments. The CBFC was represented in the appeal by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan.

Inputs from IANS