Jana Nayagan: What court said on Vijay film's censor certificate issue today | 10 points

The Madras High Court on Tuesday, January 20, heard detailed arguments from the CBFC and the producers of Jana Nayagan before reserving its orders on an appeal challenging a single judge’s direction to grant a U/A certificate to Vijay's film. The hearing focused on whether due process was followed, who had the final authority to certify the film, and whether the CBFC was denied a fair chance to respond before the earlier order was passed.

Here is what the court examined and what emerged during the hearing, explained in 10 key points.

1. At the start, both sides told the court they would need “half an hour” each to argue. ASG ARL Sundaresan appeared for the CBFC, while Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran represented the producers, KVN Productions.
2. The CBFC argued that after the December 22 communication, another communication dated January 5 clearly put the certification process on hold and sent the film for review. This January 5 decision, the ASG said, was never challenged by the producers.
3. A major grievance raised by the CBFC was that it was not given time to file a counter-affidavit before the single judge decided the case. The ASG said even one or two days should have been granted.
4. The court was told that on January 6, the CBFC was asked to produce original records and the complaint that led to the film being sent to the revising committee. These originals were produced on January 7 and examined by the judge in chambers.
5. The bench repeatedly sought clarity on who examined Jana Nayagan. The CBFC said it was the examining committee, part of the advisory panel, and not the Board itself. Its recommendations, the CBFC stressed, are not binding.
6. The court focused on whether the CBFC Chairperson had taken a final decision. The ASG said this was the core dispute, maintaining that no final decision had been taken, even though there was an indication that certification could follow after 14 cuts.
7. The Chief Justice questioned whether the matter could have been decided in one day. The CBFC pointed to writ rules that allow respondents time to file counters and argued that this safeguard was bypassed.
8. The producers said they made a tatkal application on December 18, the film was examined on December 19, and on December 22 they were informed it would be certified subject to cuts. Those cuts were made by December 25.
9. Parasaran argued that the complaint relied upon sought deletion of scenes that were already deleted, calling the review exercise pointless. He also said key communications were not uploaded on e-cinepraman in time.
10. The producers told the court that Jana Nayagan had received approval in 22 countries and that it is common industry practice to announce films without waiting for certification, citing examples like Dhurandhar 2. The CBFC, in rejoinder, said facts cannot be treated as admitted without a chance to respond and added that complaints about the depiction of armed forces may require expert review.

After hearing all sides and perusing sealed records, the Madras High Court reserved its orders on the CBFC’s appeal, leaving the final decision on Jana Nayagan’s censor certificate to be pronounced later.

Also read: Jana Nayagan censor issue verdict: Why Dhurandhar 2 came up during Vijay's film hearing