Today, on 15th January 2026, Supreme Court refused to interfere in a producer’s plea over delayed film certification, despite senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi’s submissions. He alleged CBFC acted mala fide, claiming release plans across 5,000 theatres while certification with ten cuts was promised earlier.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a case brought by a film producer regarding delays in the certification of his movie, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
Rohatgi informed the Court that the film was set for release on the 9th across approximately 5,000 theaters in India and that he had been told a certificate would be issued with 10 cuts. He contended that the actions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as “completely mala fide,”
Emphasizing the financial and commercial repercussions of the delay, Rohatgi said,
“This is a perishable commodity,”
However, the Bench pointed out that the matter was already scheduled before a Division Bench on the 20th and that the pertinent order had not been challenged previously.
The Bench noted,
“This is a blistering pace, Mr. Rohatgi,”
The film’s producer, KVN Productions, had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court contesting an interim order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court regarding the censor clearance of the Vijay-starring Tamil film Jana Nayagan that created uncertainty around the film’s release date.
Earlier, a single judge bench of the Madras High Court has 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. It was passed by Justice PT Asha.
The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan, granted an interim stay shortly after the earlier ruling by Justice PT Asha. The Bench noted that the Central Government had not been given adequate time to respond to the filmmakers’ petition before the single-judge order was issued. Consequently, the directive for granting censor clearance has been temporarily suspended.
The petition before the Madras High Court urged 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 had 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.
According to the producers, the application for certification was submitted on December 18, 2025. The Examining Committee recommended U/A 16+ certification, citing violence, fight scenes, gory visuals, and brief references to religious sentiments. After that a revised version of the film, incorporating all directed cuts, was resubmitted. Then The CBFC verified compliance and reportedly informed the producers that certification would be granted.
However, on January 5, 2026, the producers received an email stating that the film was being referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, citing complaints about religious sentiments and portrayal of defence forces.
A main aspect of the controversy is that the complaint triggering the Revising Committee referral was allegedly made by a member of the Examining Committee itself. The producers argued that this undermined the integrity of the certification process and violated established rules.
They contended that the rules do not permit reopening a concluded certification process based on undisclosed or post-approval complaints, particularly after compliance with all mandated excisions.
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.”
In concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court stated it was “not inclined to interfere” and recorded that the Division Bench might strive to resolve the appeal by January 20
The Court additionally remarked that the producer should address all concerns related to the CBFC Chairman’s January 6 order before the Division Bench.
Case Title: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification SLP(C) No. 1800/2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
