The final verdict in the Jana Nayagan censor certificate row is now out. The film, starring Thalapathy Vijay, was scheduled to release on January 9 but was put on hold after it did not receive a clearance certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification.
The makers then approached the Madras High Court, citing a delay in the issuance of the CBFC certificate. The court has now pronounced its order in the matter.
Also read: Jana Nayagan: Madras High Court clears Thalapathy Vijay's film, directs CBFC to issue UA certificate
Jana Nayagan: What the court decided
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by the makers of Jana Nayagan and directed the CBFC to issue a 'UA' certificate immediately. The court set aside the letter issued by the CBFC chairperson that had sent the film to a review committee, holding that the order was without jurisdiction.
This means that the makers of Jana Nayagan are now expected to announce a new release date for the film anytime now.
Jana Nayagan: How the court explained its decision
According to Live Law, while pronouncing the order, Justice PT Asha said, "After examining the materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an afterthought." The court also also cautioned that entertaining such complaints would give rise to a dangerous trend.
The court observed that the chairperson’s letter uploaded on January 6 was without jurisdiction. It noted that once the modifications recommended by the committee were carried out, the certificate would automatically follow.
The order further stated that the exercise of power by the chairperson was without jurisdiction, as the authority to send the film for review had already been abdicated after the chairperson, on behalf of the committee, informed that a UA certificate would be granted subject to incisions.
Since the order was without jurisdiction, the court said it could use its inherent powers to modify the relief. As a result, the letter sending the film to the review committee was set aside, and the CBFC was directed to issue the certificate immediately. The petition was allowed, with the court ordering that a “UA” certificate be issued forthwith.
