Jana Nayagan Censor Case Highlights: Madras High Court reserves verdict on CBFC appeal over U/A certificate

All updates to this live blog have ended.

The release date of Jana Nayagan remains unclear.

The Additional Solicitor General stated that the recommendation of the standing committee that the central government cannot recall or review after the certification stands in the way of the matter of deciding any issue only in a writ of certiorari after notice is issued. In the context of the present case, the board is making use of their powers. 

Arguments conclude!

The Additional Solicitor General argued that it is incorrect to claim a committee member cannot submit a complaint at a later stage. He noted that there was a complaint regarding the portrayal of the armed forces, and emphasised that protocol must be followed when showing them. Whether the complaint is valid is for the Chairperson to decide, and experts may be consulted rather than the committee deciding alone.

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai submitted that the producers were never given the appropriate documents and that once the Chairperson had taken the decision on behalf of the Board regarding certifying the film, it was not possible to give it back. 

In response to this, the Additional Solicitor General submitted that facts cannot be said to be admitted unless the party is provided with an appropriate opportunity to reply.

Parasaran ended his submission by saying that the Chairperson of the CBFC could not possibly reverse the decision that was previously reached. 

After Parasaran’s submission ended, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai started his submission on behalf of the production house.

Parasaran told the court that the film had already received approvals in 22 countries and argued that it is common industry practice to announce projects or investments even before certification. 

He pointed out that in Bollywood too, films like Dhurandhar 2 have been announced without waiting for certification.

The Chief Justice's bench pointed out that the record contained a short order, but communication was sent on January 5 and received on January 6 regarding a decision taken before that. 

Parasaran said the decision of the committee was unanimous, and even if one member gave subsequently a note of dissent, the majority view had to prevail. He said the process wrongly allowed a minority opinion to govern.

Parasaran told the court that it was only a communication and not an order that was received by producers, and thus it cannot be challenged. There was no upload by the website regarding the final decision and only an intimation that the movie was being forwarded to the revising committee was seen on the website regarding sending the movie to the revising committee.

The Chief Justice's bench asked whether the Board's decision, which was termed bad in law, was taken on the January 6, 2026 and whether the petition was filed the same day. 

Parasaran confirmed this, but clarified that the order was passed after the petition was instituted and was never shared with the producers. He said they only received a communication, not the actual order.

Parasaran told the court that all the dates he relied on were taken from the websites and records of the respondents and that nothing new was being brought in. 

He also said that the eventual view of the opinion of the member of the committee, who would have to form that opinion after watching the film, was also taken care of in the cuts that were made.

The Chief Justice said that the case could not be treated as exceptional to bypass principles of natural justice. 

To this, Parasaran explained that he was not claiming any exception, but arguing that since the facts were undisputed, there was no necessity for a counter to be filed.

Parasaran told the court that there was no point in repeatedly deleting some scenes when asking why the producers should again bring what had been deleted for another set of scenes in the form of a committee to delete again. 

The Chief Justice's bench asked Parasaran if these statements were matter of fact when Parasaran clarified that indeed all scenes which wanted to be deleted had in fact been deleted.

Parasaran told the court that the scenes that were complained about had already been deleted in the movie. He further stated that it made little sense to ask for the deleted scenes to be reinserted in the movie so that it can be re-submitted for censorship and deleted again. He called it 'an empty exercise.'

'It would be an absurdity to interpret it in any manner other than what the single judge has done,' Senior counsel Satish Parasaran said to Bench.

The judges briefly conferred among themselves on the issues raised in the case.

Parasaran brought to courts notice that the writ court rightly pointed out that the revision may be made only suo motu or by the applicant. He further submitted, 'The complaint being made in a sealed cover, the applicant has no chance to reply.'

The Additional Solicitor General explained that it was an email from CBFC Chairperson Prasoon Joshi to regional officer Balamurugan. 

The Chief Justice asked for the letter, saying that though they have changed courts from writ to appeals court, they have yet to set eyes on this letter.

The Chief Justice asked for the absence of the decision of the chairman, as it represents the decision of the board as per the statute. 

The ASG said that they will not produce it in court as it will be found in e-CinePraman and they have already given a copy to the single judge. 

Bench is studying the documents and the complaint filed in sealed cover by the CBFC.

The Additional Solicitor General clarified that the original records were with the Chennai office, while the file for the complainant was taken from Bombay by an officer.

Parasaran informed the court that the Chairperson had the authority to either refer the movie for consideration or decide on the certificates on a unanimous recommendation by the committee, so the December 22 communication was a Board decision. 

Upon being asked for a direction by the Chief Justice, Parasaran said that it had to be produced, indicating that the records were produced from Bombay. 

Parasaran informed the court that as per the statute, members of the examining committee cannot be the complainants. 

The Chief Justice asked him if they were granted a hearing; Parasaran replied that they came prepared with a sealed envelope.

The Chief Justice stated that the case had to be given immediate hearing because the producers created a sense of urgency, which forced the Additional Solicitor General to advance his argument.

Parasaran explained that according to the Rules, the Regional Committee’s task is to notify the applicant of the decision of the chairperson. With regard to this matter, the regional office indicated that the matter of certifying the film was dependent on incisions being made, and that objections thereto could be challenged.

Parasaran represented before the court that the offending communication reflected the decision of the Chairman to withdraw his earlier decision. This is in reference to the January 5 notification, which stated the film was being forwarded to the revising committee because of the complaint alleging hurt to religious sentiments. 

He added that this was followed by the producers approaching the court, where all the necessary documents were placed before the single judge for consideration.

Senior counsel Parasaran informed the court that a tatkal application for urgent consideration had been filed on December 18 by the producers. The committee viewed the movie on the 19th and indicated on the 22nd that certification would be obtained pending cuts. The cuts were effected on the December 25 and returned to the committee. 

He made it clear that to ensure transparency and clarity, all communications should be made to the applicant and should also be uploaded on e-CinePraman, and no further communication beyond the December 29 has been uploaded.

'Though the Board intimated an order on January 5 and sent a communication on January 6, the actual CBFC order was never issued,' senior counsel Parasaran told the court. 

He contented that the producers can't challenge a non-existent order which was merely a regional office communication.

ASG concluded his argument and now Jana Nayagan makers' lawyer Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran has initiateed his argument.

The Chief Justice asked whether the CBFC’s power under Rule 25 to refer a film to a revising committee continues to exist. The Additional Solicitor General replied that the power remains even after a tentative communication, and that the decision-making process is completed only when the certificate is finally granted.

He also added that after certification, the film is notified in the Gazette. Only then, if discrepancies or irregularities are found, the certificate can be revoked.

The Chief Justice's bench pointed out that the single judge had observed that once a communication regarding certification was issued, the power of the CBFC to send the film for review stood abdicated. 

The Additional Solicitor General responded by saying that the observation was incorrect, as certification ultimately depends on the final decision of the Board.

The Additional Solicitor General appeared before the court and explained his arguments were restricted to preliminary matters and not to merits. 

While relying on The Cinematograph Act, he asserted that a producer acquires such a right only after the screening and clearance of his movie by CBFC. Until then, he did not feel there existed any obligation to warrant issuance of Writ of Mandamus.

The bench will now hear the argument from the producers' side.

The Additional Solicitor General concluded his arguments by saying that they did not have enough time to file a reply and that they never contested a communication that was dated January 6. After the arguments presented by the Additional Solicitor General, it was stated that the bench would be hearing arguments from the producers after the lunch break.

The Additional Solicitor General contended that the court could not possibly assess whether the judgment is correct or not without the specific request for the grant of certiorari. He stated that he could only answer with reference to the prayer for the grant of certiorari but was granted despite the lack of the same. 

Stating with reference to the obituarary notice made by the single judge that the decision by the chairperson of the CBFC was made beyond his jurisdiction, the ASG submitted that the assessment made by the single judge was not possible inasmuch as the communication dated January 6 was not challenged at all.

According to Live Law, the Additional Solicitor General reported that the producers have fixed the release date and were of the view that any further holding up would result in losses to the tune of Rs 500 crore. He further added that fixing the date of release was not required and that he needed to be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the facts and the law. 

The ASG also made it clear that the producers were aware of the January 5 notice to send the film for review prior to the writ petition being taken up.

The Chief Justice stated that the important question is whether sufficient time was afforded to the other party and whether it could have been resolved within a day. The ASG stated that according to writ petitions, a respondent is afforded a period of eight weeks to file a counter, unless otherwise directed by the court. The ASG argued that while their lunch prayer was granted and the petition was handed out, at least a day or two should have been afforded for filing a counter.

The Chief Justice's bench drew attention to the point that the November 22, 2025 letter indicated that the board had come to a decision and asked if the committee has sent their recommendation to the board. Again, this was confirmed by the Additional Solicitor General, who emphasised that while there was an initial indication that it would be certified, it was halted due to the complaint received by the censor board.

ASG continued and said that so far as the case at hand involving Jana Nayagan is concerned, the chairman CBFC has not yet taken a final decision regarding the grant of certification for the film, which is definitely over 72 minutes.

CJ further questioned that it is not possible for the Board members in Bombay to sit and review each film individually. So, for this purpose, these advisory panels are formed that help the Board, but are their suggestion is not binding upon them? To which, Additional Solicitor General of India said that yes, it's not binding. 

Madras High Court Chief Justice's Bench asked CBFC about who saw the movie and were they members of the board or not?

In response ASG said that they were also members of the examining committee and are members of the advisory panel.

According to Live Law, ASG explained how the law places the courts in a difficult position and takes the court through the provisions of the Cinematograph Act that explains the powers and functions of the regional officer. 

In response the bench asked for statutory scheme.

The bench of Chief Justice asked that the regional office is at Chennai, so where the decision came from? To which ASG replied, 'The board. From Bombay. However, the body which sent the letter to the producers was the regional office.'

ASG further added that the examining committee watched the film and suggested 14 cuts, but that decision was not final. It was only a temporary or preliminary step and the final certification decision is still pending or will be taken later by the appropriate authority.

Additional Solicitor General of India said, 'When the matter was taken up, I told them that the decision of 5/1 was not challenged and even for issuing mandamus, we should be permitted to file counter. However, the court decided to hear the matter based on materials before it. Heard the matter. Reserved orders and passed orders on 9/1/26 setting aside the decision'.

Censor Board gives its report in court. Lawyers from both the sides tell the court that they want to argue for half an hour each. 

Vijay fans seem hooked to their seats as the hearing at Madras HC has begun. A X user wrote, 'They could literally make an entire courtroom drama movie just based on the Jana Nayagan censor issue #JanaNayagan'.

The hearing over CBFC's writ appeal against KVN Productions and Thalapathy Vijay's film Jana Nayagan has begun at the Madras High Court.

According to Sacnilk, despite the discontent over the release date being postponed, the buzz about the film only seems to get increased as it has crossed the 1 million mark on BookMyShow, which clearly indicates the enormous fan following the superstar possesses as well as the immense curiosity associated with what is believed to be among his biggest releases.

The Madras High Court will resume hearing on an appeal case filed by CBFC to challenge an earlier order by a single judge to issue an 'U/A' certificate to Jana Nayagan starring Tamil politician-turned-actor Thalapathy Vijay.

A lot is pending on today's hearing as the makers of Jana Nayagan are in talks for an enormous deal for the OTT rights of the film in Rs 121 crores. However, this deal is currently under cloud.

The OTT distribution will be affected due to the eight-week window rule. The OTT distribution will depend on the theatre distribution. The delay of the film has hampered the OTT distribution.

Chief of TVK and actor Vijay was called by the CBI for the second round of questioning regarding the Karur stampede case. During the inquiry, Vijay was asked questions regarding the decisions taken for the rally, crowd management, his knowledge regarding the chaos, and his role in it. Vijay reached the CBI office located at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, around 10:20 am with his convoy of luxury SUVs and left the office around 5:00 pm.

According to experts, there are four possible outcomes for the Jan Nayagan Madras High Court release date hearing today:

1. The producers agree to send the film back to the Revising Committee, which would cause further delays.
2. The producers stand firm on their demands and the court may allow them to file a writ appeal, taking the case to the Supreme Court.
3. The court dismisses the appeal and sends the case back to the single judge, giving the CBFC an opportunity to file its response.
4. The court upholds the single judge's order, clearing the way for the film's release.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan will take up this appeal case. On the 9 January, it was directed by the single judge to certify this film by the CBFC. Nonetheless, this order by single judge was stayed by the division bench in the evening of the same day.

Reportedly, before the film's release was postponed on January 9, Jana Nayagan had earned approximately 40 crore rupees in advance bookings for the first day and approximately 60 crore rupees for the first weekend overseas. But after the film's release was postponed, the global pre-sales of 100 crore rupees vanished overnight, which was a major blow to the foreign distributors who were planning a record-breaking release in 25 countries.

Jana Nayagan is Thalapathy Vijay's last film. Hence, the movie has kept Vijay fans hooked to their seats. After the January 9 disappointment, the makers and fans must be hoping for a clearance from Madras HC today. The hearing will begin at 11:30 AM.

On January 12, the film's producers, KVN Productions, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court's division bench. On January 15, the Supreme Court refused to hear the petition and directed the Madras High Court to decide on the matter by January 20. Now that the case has come before the Madras High Court again on Tuesday, the film's makers and fans must be having their hopes high.

Jana Nayagan's grand audio launch took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Several celebrities, including Vijay Bobby Deol and Pooja Hegde, were present at the event, while composer Anirudh Ravichander performed live.

If Jana Nayagan gets clearance today and is released on the occasion of Republic Day, then Thalapathy Vijay's film will face Border 2 at the box office. With Sunny Deol's film being released only in Hindi and Dhurandhar gearing up for an OTT release, Jana Nayagan will surely rule the Tamil and Telugu box office while also showing potential at North Indian ticket counters.

After missing the Sankranti date, now the makers of Jana Nayagan must be eyeing to release the film on the occasion of Republic Day 2026. If the film gets clearance from Madras High Court and CBFC today then, this Friday will be a good time to release Thalapathy Vijay's film.

There were also concerns expressed by a member of the censor board about some scenes having community-oriented themes and it was considered that perhaps those scenes might be sensitive and need tweaking to prevent misunderstandings.

One of the most prominent of these objections centers upon the possible display of a defense emblem, which, in their opinion, demanded explanation and official sanction. This issue has been later submitted for review to relevant specialists to see if it transgresses extant guidelines.

From the court case, it is apparent that the board felt that the degree of violence inherent in the film was excessive and thus raised queries regarding it being publicly shown. It is on this basis that several cuts were requested, and the film producers allegedly obeyed.

After the makers were unable to receive the film certificate by CBFC in time, they approached the Madras High Court and the single judge ordered the censor board to give Thalapathy Vijay starrer a 'U/A' certificate immediately. However, soon after that,  CBFC filled a writ appeal and the Chief Justice Bench postponed the matter for today's hearing.

Madras High Court will hear the matter on CBFC vs Jana Nayagan at around 11:30 am. This hearing comes after the makers approached the Supreme Court and were asked to wait for the Madras High Court’s verdict.

Although Justice PT Asha ordered the censor board to grant the film a U/A certificate, the CBFC immediately appealed against this decision. This is why the film's release has been postponed until at least January 21, when the next hearing in the case is scheduled. Frustrated by the delay in getting relief, the producers also approached the Supreme Court, appealing for the certification process to be expedited and a release date to be fixed. 

After the film was postponed, the makers shared a video and while explaining the matter, Venkat K Narayana, KVN, said that the film was submitted to the CBFC on December 18, 2025 and was viewed by the examining committee. On December 22, they received an email stating that the film would be granted a U/A 16+ certificate with suggested changes. They made the changes and resubmitted the film. However, the formal certificate was still awaited and follow-ups were being made for the same. Just a few days before the planned release on the evening of January 5, they were informed that the film had been referred to the revising committee based on one complaint.

Post these occurrences. the makers approached the Madras High Court and almost had a win until the CBFC filed a writ appeal.