The Madras High Court ordered the CBFC to promptly grant final censor clearance for Vijay’s Jana Nayagan, holding that reopening the certification was flawed. Justice P.T. Asha noted filmmakers faced unwarranted delays despite compliance, necessitating judicial intervention by authorities.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to swiftly issue final censor clearance for the release of the Vijay-starrer film Jana Nayagan, stating that the decision to reevaluate its censor certification was flawed.
Justice P.T. Asha delivered this ruling after reserving judgment on Wednesday. The filmmakers had reported delays from the CBFC in providing the final censor certificate.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had reserved its decision this petition urging the CBFC to issue a censor certificate under the ‘UA 16+‘ category for the film “Jana Nayagan,” starring top actor and TVK chief Vijay.
This film is expected to be Vijay’s last. An initial review by the CBFC’s examining committee recommended a U/A 16 certificate, contingent upon certain cuts that the filmmakers duly implemented.
However, the film was subsequently referred to a revising committee after a complaint was lodged regarding its portrayal of defense forces and specific scenes that could potentially offend religious sentiments.
The Court has now instructed the CBFC to promptly issue the U/A 16 certificate, noting that the filmmakers have already made the required cuts.
During the initial hearing on January 6, the film’s producer questioned how a complaint could arise concerning the film’s content when it had not yet been viewed by the general public.
It later emerged that the complaint originated from a member of the examining committee who had claimed that his concerns were not officially recorded.
When the plea was heard, Justice Asha had requested the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to provide a copy of the “complaint” alleging that the film “hurts religious sentiments.”
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the production house, criticized how the filmmakers were kept uninformed regarding this issue. He argued that the law mandates the CBFC to operate with greater transparency and emphasized that Rs 500 crores was at stake for the film, accusing the CBFC of not adequately addressing the producer’s issues.
Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, countered that there was no malicious intent from the board and asserted that its chairman was within his rights to refer the matter to a revision committee.
He added that the recommendations of the examining committee do not diminish these powers and that, since the final censor certificate had not yet been issued, the chairman could authorize the revision process.
The Court ultimately dismissed these arguments.