The Madras High Court on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, reserved its verdict on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) appeal concerning actor-politician Vijay’s Tamil film ‘Jana Nayagan.’ The appeal challenges a single bench order directing the CBFC to grant a UA certificate to the film.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, reserved its decision after a three-hour-long hearing. Previously, the bench had stayed the single judge’s order.
CBFC’s Arguments
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan, representing the CBFC, made two key arguments:
- The Board was not given adequate time to file a counter affidavit.
- The communication dated January 6, 2026, regarding review of the film by the Revising Committee, had not been challenged by the producers.
The CBFC argued that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the Chairperson has the authority to refer a film to the Revising Committee suo motu or based on complaints, even after the Examining Committee has made a recommendation.
Producer’s Counterpoints
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the producer, countered that
- The Regional CBFC Office in Chennai had unanimously recommended granting a UA certificate.
- The Revising Committee’s review cannot override a unanimous decision of the Examining Committee.
- The producers had already deleted the scenes flagged by the complainant. Parasaran argued that the CBFC’s demand to reintroduce and then delete the scenes again was unnecessary and redundant.
“A unanimous decision was taken, and even if one member later disagrees, the majority decision should govern. Right now, the minority decision is controlling,” Parasaran told the court.
The ASG responded that facts can only be considered admitted if the CBFC is given an opportunity to counter.
Timeline of the Certification Process
- December 22, 2025: The Chennai Regional CBFC office recommended a UA certificate, subject to minor excisions.
- December 29, 2025: Producers implemented the modifications; the regional office confirmed the UA certificate would be granted.
- January 5, 2026: The producer received a communication stating the competent authority decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee.
- January 6, 2026: Producers filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the referral.
Courtroom Highlights
During the hearing:
- The bench questioned if the Regional Examining Committee was binding. ASG clarified that the committee assists the Board, but its recommendations are not binding.
- The court also noted that the Revising Committee is obliged to decide within 20 days of referral.
The division bench observed that it may be impractical for the Mumbai Board to examine every film individually, which is why the regional committees play a supporting role.
Current Status
The Madras High Court has reserved its verdict, and a decision is expected soon. The case will determine whether the UA certificate granted by the Regional CBFC Office stands or if the Revising Committee’s review will take precedence.
Key Takeaways
- Vijay’s Jana Nayagan remains under scrutiny for censor certification.
- The case underscores the tension between regional CBFC offices and the central board in film certification.
- Fans of Vijay are closely watching the court proceedings for a final UA certificate ruling.
References: LiveLaw