No Immediate Relief for Vijay’s Jana Nayagan: Supreme Court Sends Case Back to HC, Hearing on Jan 20

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard the petition filed by the film’s producers after the Madras High Court declined to grant immediate relief in the matter concerning certification delays by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

Appearing for the producers, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the case involved urgent timelines linked to the film’s release. “My Lords, this relates to a film. In the industry, the practice is, once a release is announced, I have 5,000 theatres booked. I get certification subject to cuts. The publicity has already happened. After three months, people will not wait,” he submitted.

Justice Dipankar Datta, however, remarked that the petitioner had approached the Apex Court prematurely, bypassing proper judicial procedure.

“This is a blistering pace. When the matter is fixed before a division bench, you don’t challenge that order. It has to be challenged in the proper forum,” Justice Datta said.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBFC.

The Bench noted that the single judge of the High Court had cited a 2024 judgment, which was not applicable in this case, as it pertained to a service matter. “Go back to the division bench,” Justice Datta observed.

Despite Rohatgi’s plea that the film’s release schedule and investments were at stake; calling the CBFC’s actions “completely mala fide”, the Supreme Court refused to intervene directly.

“Why shouldn’t the other party be given an opportunity to reply? Take this point before the division bench,” the bench said.

Rohatgi then requested that the top court direct the division bench to take up the matter urgently on January 20.

The Supreme Court recorded his request and ordered: “Let the division bench decide on January 20.”

The legal battle stems from a dispute over the Central Board of Film Certification’s refusal to issue a censor certificate on time, pushing the producers into Court just days ahead of the proposed release. The Madras High Court’s interim order has effectively put the film’s release on hold, with the final outcome now hinging on the Supreme Court’s decision.

In the latest development, the production house has approached the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay imposed by a division bench of the Madras High Court on the film’s certification. According to Nakkheeran, the makers have sought urgent listing of the matter and requested that it be taken up at the earliest, possibly on January 12.

The High Court stay had blocked the implementation of a single judge’s order directing the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to the film, thereby halting its immediate release.

The controversy traces back to January 6, when the producers moved the Madras High Court citing delays in certification. During the hearing, the Censor Board informed the Court that a complaint had been received regarding a scene allegedly containing religiously offensive content, necessitating reconsideration of the certification.

Justice Asha questioned how a member of the certification committee could lodge a complaint in an individual capacity and why the film was subjected to further scrutiny after entering the certification process. The CBFC, in response, submitted that a symbol associated with the defence forces had been used without appropriate expertise, while maintaining that there was no hidden agenda behind the objection.

Notably, on January 9, Justice Asha directed the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to Jana Nayagan. The order was promptly challenged by the Board before a division bench headed by the Chief Justice. The bench questioned the filmmakers for announcing a release date without securing certification and granted an interim stay on the single judge’s direction. The next hearing before the High Court is scheduled for January 21.

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.