Madras High Court Stays Order Passed in Favour of KVN Productions in Jana Nayagan CBFC Dispute

In the Vijay starrer Jana Nayagan film certification dispute, The Madras High Court on January 9, 2026 stayed the operation of an order passed by a single judge earlier that day that had granted relief to KVN Productions LLP in the dispute with the Central Board of Film Certification, after observing that the statutory authority had not been given adequate opportunity to place its case before the court.

The interim stay was granted by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan while hearing a writ appeal filed by the CBFC and its regional officer in Chennai.

According to the CBFC, the writ petition itself was filed on 06 January 2026 and was taken up for hearing on the very next day. Senior law officers appearing for the certification body submitted that the authority was not granted sufficient time to file a counter affidavit or effectively respond to the allegations raised by the producer. The bench noted, prima facie, that the main case had been heard and decided with unusual haste.

Another key objection raised by the CBFC was that the single judge had set aside an order dated 06 January 2026, even though that order was not specifically challenged in the writ petition. The appellants argued that while the writ petition sought a mandamus, the learned single judge went a step further and quashed an administrative order that was not the subject matter of a certiorari challenge.

Appearing for the CBFC, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan submitted that such an approach caused serious prejudice to the statutory authority, especially when it was deprived of an opportunity to place its stand on record. They urged the court to stay the single judge’s order pending final adjudication of the appeal.

On the other hand, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the film producer, defended the single judge’s decision by pointing to the urgency involved in the matter. He submitted that the film was scheduled to be screened on 09 January 2026 and that any delay would have resulted in irreparable loss to the producer.

The division bench, however, was not persuaded by the urgency argument. Court observed that it was an admitted position on record that no certification had actually been granted in favour of the producer at the relevant time. In that backdrop, the bench held that the plea of extreme urgency could not justify denying the CBFC a reasonable opportunity to file its response or justify quashing an order that was not directly under challenge. 

Taking these factors into account, court passed an interim order staying the effect and operation of the impugned single judge order. The bench clarified that the stay was being granted after a prima facie assessment of the manner in which the writ petition had been entertained and disposed of.

The writ appeal has now been listed for final disposal on 20 January 2026, as agreed to by counsel appearing for both sides. The court is expected to examine in detail the scope of the single judge’s jurisdiction, the issue of procedural fairness to the CBFC, and the legality of the relief granted to the film producer.

Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another vs. KVN Productions LLP

Order Date: January 9, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan