Vijay’s Jana Nayagan row: Madras High Court sets aside order granting censor clearance

The Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed an appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), setting aside a single-judge order that had directed the immediate grant of a ‘UA 16+’ censor certificate to Thalapathy Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan held that the single judge had erred by examining the merits of a complaint concerning the film’s content without giving the CBFC sufficient time to file its response.

“Single judge ought not to have gone into the merits. The decision of the writ court has to go,” the Bench observed, allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the matter to the single judge for fresh consideration. The court also granted liberty to the producer to amend the writ petition.


The ruling effectively means that the release of the film will be delayed further.

The Division Bench had earlier, on January 9, stayed the single-judge order after noting that the Central government had not been afforded time to file a counter-affidavit. Subsequently, on January 15, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea filed by the producers challenging the stay and the delay in the grant of final certification.

Jana Nayagan, billed as Vijay’s last film before his full-time political entry following the launch of his party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), was scheduled for a Pongal release on January 9.

The producers, KVN Productions, had approached the High Court alleging undue delay by the CBFC despite compliance with all cuts and modifications suggested by the Examining Committee.

According to the producers, the film was submitted for certification on December 18, 2025, and the Examining Committee, after a personal hearing, recommended a ‘UA 16+’ certificate on December 22, citing depictions of violence, fight sequences, gory visuals and brief religious references.

The committee suggested certain excisions, which the producers said were fully complied with before resubmitting the revised version on December 24. The modifications were verified on December 29, and the producers were informed that the film would be granted ‘UA 16+’ certification.

However, on January 5, the CBFC informed the producers that the film had been referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, citing a complaint alleging improper portrayal of defence forces and potential hurt to religious sentiments. It later emerged that the complaint had been made by a member of the Examining Committee itself.

The CBFC was represented by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, while KVN Productions was represented by senior advocate Satish Parasaran, assisted by advocates Vijayan Subramanian and Shubang Nair.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)