The Madras High Court will pronounce its verdict on January 27 on CBFC’s appeal challenging the order granting a U/A 16+ certificate to Vijay’s Jana Nayagan. The case raises key questions on CBFC Chairman’s powers and procedural fairness in film certification.
The first Division Bench of the Madras High Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, in a crucial legal battle involving actor Vijay’s much-awaited and reportedly final film Jana Nayagan. The case arises from a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), challenging an earlier order passed by a single judge of the High Court.
The appeal is directed against the January 9, 2026 order, in which the single judge had instructed the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to the film. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan had reserved its verdict on January 20, 2026, after hearing arguments from both sides.
Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan raised strong objections to the manner in which the single judge handled the matter. Representing the film’s producer, KVN Productions LLP, senior advocate Satish Parasaran, assisted by advocate Vijayan Subramanian, defended the single judge’s decision and highlighted the urgency faced by the production house due to the announced release date.
During the hearing, the Division Bench made it clear that it would first examine two important preliminary issues before going into the merits of the case. The judges questioned whether the single judge was justified in deciding the writ petition merely by calling for the CBFC records, without giving the board sufficient time or opportunity to file a counter affidavit.
The Bench also sought clarity on whether the single judge was right in quashing the CBFC Chairman’s decision dated January 6, 2026, which referred the movie to a nine-member revising committee. This was questioned because the production house had not filed a writ of certiorari challenging that specific decision.
Instead, the producers had only asked for a writ of mandamus directing the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate, as already recommended by the five-member examining committee.
Only after both sides made their submissions on these two preliminary questions did the Division Bench proceed to hear arguments on the main issues.
On merits, the production house argued that once the examining committee had cleared the film with a U/A 16+ rating, the CBFC Chairman had no authority to send the film to a revising committee. The CBFC, however, maintained that the Chairman had full statutory powers to do so.
During the course of arguments, Mr. Sundaresan pointed out the timeline of events to show procedural unfairness. He told the court that the production house had filed its writ petition on January 6, 2026, and the matter was taken up by the single judge the very same afternoon after granting a lunch motion. According to him, the CBFC was then directed to produce its records on January 7, 2026.
He submitted that on January 7, the judge examined the documents, heard both sides briefly, and reserved orders. Just two days later, on January 9, 2026, the judge pronounced the order, not only directing the CBFC to issue the U/A 16+ certificate but also quashing the CBFC Chairman’s January 6 decision, which had been uploaded on the e-cinepramaan portal.
The Additional Solicitor General strongly objected to this, stating that the Chairman’s decision was never challenged by the production house in its writ petition. He further complained that the CBFC was not given an opportunity to file a detailed counter affidavit before such far-reaching directions were issued.
Responding to these allegations, senior counsel Satish Parasaran explained the situation from the producer’s side and stressed the urgency involved. He told the court that the production house had applied for certification under the Tatkal scheme on December 18, 2025, and had already made a public announcement that the film would be released on January 9, 2026.
He said the examining committee watched the movie on December 19, 2025, and all five members unanimously recommended issuing a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to certain cuts. This recommendation was officially communicated to the production house on December 22, 2025.
Mr. Parasaran informed the court that the producers immediately accepted the examining committee’s recommendations and carried out all the suggested excisions. The edited version of the film was then re-submitted to the CBFC on December 24, 2025. However, after that, there was complete silence from the board, despite several reminders sent by the producers requesting issuance of the certificate.
According to him, the situation suddenly changed on January 5, 2026, when the production house was informed that the CBFC Chairman had decided to refer the film to a revising committee. Left with no option and with the release date fast approaching, the producers rushed to the High Court the very next day by filing a writ petition on January 6, 2026.
Mr. Parasaran further told the court that it was only during the court proceedings that the CBFC disclosed the reason for referring the film to the revising committee. He said the referral was based on a complaint received by the CBFC Chairman from one of the five members of the examining committee itself.
He questioned the credibility of such a complaint and argued that it was highly questionable how a member who had already recorded his views and recommendations immediately after watching the movie on December 19, 2025, could later complain to the Chairman.
According to the complaint, the film contained several references to the Indian Army without any subject expert being part of the examining committee, and also had scenes touching upon religious conflict.
Mr. Parasaran argued that the production house had already removed all visuals and scenes as directed by the examining committee. He said it would be completely unreasonable and illogical to expect the producers to reinsert those very portions back into the movie just to present it again before a revising committee.
With both sides having completed their arguments on procedural fairness, statutory powers, and urgency, the Division Bench reserved its judgment on January 20, 2026. The final decision, which could have significant implications for film certification procedures and release timelines, is now expected to be delivered on January 27, 2026.
Case Title:
KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification SLP(C) No. 1800/2026
Click Here to Read More Reports On Jana Nayagan
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
