The Madras High Court on Monday reserved its orders on the appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification challenging a single judge’s direction to grant a U/A certificate to Vijay’s film Jana Nayagan, bringing a day-long hearing to a close while leaving the film’s release in suspense.
During the hearing, Vijay's film producers mentioned Dhurandhar 2. Read on to know the context.
Jana Nayagan: Details of the court proceedings
The hearing opened with both sides stating the time required for arguments, with ASG ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the CBFC, and Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing KVN Productions, each seeking half an hour. As arguments unfolded, the CBFC’s primary grievance centred on what it described as a lack of opportunity before the single judge passed the order directing certification.
The ASG referred to communications dated December 22 and January 5, stressing that even as per the producers’ own affidavit, the January 5 intimation made it clear that the earlier decision had been kept on hold and the film sent for review. He argued that this decision was never challenged and that the CBFC was denied time to file a counter. He also maintained that the examining committee’s recommendation of 14 cuts was only an intermediary step, not a final decision, and that the process was paused after a complaint was received.
Jana Nayagan: Court examines authority and pace of proceedings
The bench repeatedly sought clarity on who examined the film and whether the Chairperson had taken a final call. The ASG explained that the film was viewed by members of the examining committee, which functions as an advisory panel, and that its recommendations are not binding on the Board. According to him, the Chairperson had not taken a final decision, making the single judge’s conclusions premature.
The court also questioned whether the matter could have been decided in a single day, particularly when writ rules allow time for filing counters. The ASG argued that even if the full statutory period was not possible, at least a short window should have been granted.
Jana Nayagan: Producers mention Dhurandhar 2
After lunch, the CBFC reiterated that under the Cinematograph Act, a legal right arises only after certification is granted and published, and until then, the power to send a film to a revising committee continues. Countering this, Parasaran took the court through the producers’ timeline, from the tatkal application on December 18 to the December 22 intimation that the film would be certified subject to cuts, which were carried out by December 25.
Parasaran argued that the producers never received the Chairperson’s actual order and were served only communications from the regional office. He also contended that the complaint relied upon sought deletion of scenes that had already been removed, calling the exercise meaningless. Highlighting commercial pressure, he told the court that Amazon had issued a warning on December 31 seeking clarity on the release date.
Arguing on industry practice, the producers told the court that Jana Nayagan had already received approval in 22 countries and that it is not customary to wait for certification before making financial announcements, citing how Bollywood projects such as Dhurandhar 2 have also been announced without final clearance.
Jana Nayagan: The latest verdict
In rejoinder, the CBFC rejected the claim that facts were undisputed, arguing that facts can be treated as admitted only after giving it an opportunity to respond. The ASG also said the complaint involved issues such as the depiction of armed forces, which may require expert examination beyond the examining committee.
After perusing sealed records, hearing detailed arguments from both sides, and weighing questions of authority, procedure, and fairness, the Madras High Court reserved its orders on the CBFC’s appeal, leaving the final decision on Jana Nayagan’s certification to be pronounced later.
