CBFC Has No Power to Reopen Certification After Approval: Madras High Court on Jana Nayagan

In a sharp rebuke to the censor board’s reversal, the Madras High Court has held that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification of Jana Nayagan based on a post-facto complaint by one of its own examining members.

Allowing a writ petition filed by the film’s producer, M/s KVN Productions LLP, the High Court set aside the decision of the CBFC to refer the film to a Revising Committee after it had already accepted the Examining Committee’s unanimous recommendation to grant a UA 16+ certificate subject to excisions.

Justice P.T. Asha held that once the Board had accepted the Examining Committee’s recommendation and communicated the same to the applicant, the Chairperson of the CBFC ceased to have the authority to invoke revisional powers under the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024. Any subsequent attempt to reopen the process, the court said, was without jurisdiction.

Court was dealing with a challenge to the CBFC’s January 5, 2026 communication informing the producer that Jana Nayagan was being referred to a Revising Committee on the basis of a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and improperly portrayed the armed forces. This communication came after the Examining Committee had viewed the film on December 19, 2025 and unanimously recommended UA 16+ certification subject to specific excisions, which were accepted by the Board and conveyed to the producer on December 22, 2025.

The producer carried out all the suggested cuts and submitted the revised version along with the statutory declaration on December 24, 2025. Court noted that the records showed that the excisions were verified in accordance with Rule 27 of the 2024 Rules, leaving only the formal issuance of the censor certificate.

A significant part of court’s reasoning focused on the complaint that triggered the reversal. The complainant was a member of the Examining Committee who had himself signed the statutory Form VIII recommending certification subject to excisions. Court observed that the objections raised in the complaint substantially overlapped with the very portions that had already been ordered to be excised and complied with by the producer.

Describing the complaint as an afterthought, court warned that permitting such volte-face by members of the Examining Committee would give rise to a “dangerous trend” where committee members could renege on their own recommendations after a decision had been taken. Such a practice, court cautioned, would erode the sanctity and credibility of the CBFC’s certification process.

On the legal question, court undertook a detailed reading of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 2024, particularly Rules 24, 25, 26 and 27. It held that the Chairperson’s suo motu power to refer a film to a Revising Committee could be exercised only before the Board acted on the Examining Committee’s report. Once the Board decided to accept the recommendation and communicated it under Rule 26, the process moved into the stage contemplated by Rule 27, where certification follows upon compliance with excisions.

Court rejected the Union government’s submission that the Chairperson could invoke revisional powers at any time before the actual issuance of the certificate. Accepting such an interpretation, the court said, would amount to allowing authorities to move backwards in a statutorily sequenced process, contrary to the scheme of the Rules.

It also noted that even assuming a suo motu power could be exercised on the basis of a complaint, such power had to be exercised before the Board’s decision was taken and communicated. In the present case, the complaint itself was dated after the December 22, 2025 communication accepting the Examining Committee’s recommendation.

Holding that the subsequent decision uploaded on the CBFC’s e-cinepramaan portal on January 6, 2026 was without jurisdiction, court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to mould relief. It set aside the Chairperson’s decision referring the film to a Revising Committee and issued a writ of mandamus directing the CBFC to issue the UA 16+ certificate forthwith, taking note of the excisions submitted on December 24, 2025, in accordance with Rule 27(1) and Rule 37(6) of the 2024 Rules.

Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP vs. Central Board of Film Certification and Another

Order Date: January 9, 2026

Bench: Justice P T Asha