The censor clearance dispute over Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan has reached the Supreme Court, as KVN Productions challenged a Madras High Court interim order that created uncertainty over the film’s release. Earlier directions were stayed later by bench.
NEW DELHI: The dispute regarding the censor clearance of the Vijay-starring Tamil film Jana Nayagan has went to the Supreme Court. The film’s producer, KVN Productions, has filed an appeal contesting a Madras High Court interim order that created uncertainty around the film’s release date.
Earlier, 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.
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.
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 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.
- December 22, 2025: The Examining Committee recommended U/A 16+ certification, citing violence, fight scenes, gory visuals, and brief references to religious sentiments.
- December 24, 2025: A revised version of the film, incorporating all directed cuts, was resubmitted.
- December 29, 2025: 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.”
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.
Now the matter will be decided by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
