Madras High Court, reserved its orders on a plea filed by the makers of Jananayagan, seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a censor certificate for the film.
Published Jan 07, 2026 | 4:56 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 08, 2026 | 1:30 PM
Pongal releases. (X)
Actor turned politician Vijay’s Jananayagan and Sivakarthikeyan’s Parasakthi are all set to clash for the Pongal season.
The Vijay-starrer, which marks the actor’s final film before entering active politics, was set to release on 9 January. Meanwhile, Parasakthi is set to hit screens, just a day later, on 10 January.
Apart from the politics between ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (DMK) and newly emerging Vijay Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhakam (TVK), issue of censor certificate delay also has emerged ahead of the release.
On Wednesday, 7 January, the Madras High Court, reserved its orders on a plea filed by the makers of Jananayagan, seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a censor certificate for the film.
Justice PT Asha heard detailed arguments from both sides for over an hour and said the verdict would be pronounced before 9 am on 9 January, the date already announced by the producers for the film’s theatrical release.
However, the Jananayagan makers announced late Wednesday, that the film has been postponed to a later date.
Meanwhile, new reports say that Sivakarthikeyan’s Parasakthi is also yet to receive a clearance certificate from the CBFC. It had asked for 23 edits, and the film was reviewed on Wednesday.
According to reports, the CBFC in Chennai had asked director Sudha Kongara to remove certain scenes and dialogues related to the anti-Hindi agitation in the movie. However Sudha Kongara had approached the Revising Committee of the Censor Board in Mumbai. She was concerned about the cuts as it could impact the storyline and alter its context. An official update is yet to be out.
Vijay in ‘Jananayagan’. (X)
On Tuesday, 6 January, the makers of Vijay’s film have approached the Madras High Court, seeking the issuance of a censor certificate. According to Livelaw, Justice PT Asha allowed an urgent motion made by the producers of the movie.
KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, who is producing the movie, has approached the court alleging that the movie’s certification is being unreasonably withheld and delayed, which would in turn would cause massive financial loss to the producers of the movie, the report added.
Narayana said he applied for the censor certificate on December 18, 2025, and was informed on December 22 that a “UA” certificate was recommended, subject to modifications. After complying and resubmitting the revised version on December 24, the Regional Office confirmed on December 29 that the film would receive a “UA” certificate, but it has not been issued yet.
On January 5, 2026, Narayana received an email from the Regional Office stating that the competent authority had decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules. The referral was based on a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and misrepresented the armed forces.
After hearing the petitioners, the court directed the CBFC to produce the complaints based on which the movie was sent to the review committee and adjourned the case to Wednesday, 7 December.
On Wednesday, CBFC submitted that once a film is screened, the opinions of all examining committee members are consolidated and forwarded by the Regional Officer to the appropriate authority. It argued that the Chairperson of the CBFC has the statutory authority to refer a film to a Revising Committee if not satisfied with the recommendations of the Examining Committee, even after an initial decision to grant certification.
The Board further stated that certain symbols related to security forces were used in the film, warranting consultation with experts, and that re-examination was therefore justified. It clarified that five members of the original committee would not be part of the Revising Committee, which would consist of a fresh set of members.
Responding to the court’s query on how a complaint reached the CBFC Chairperson, the Board said the complainant had personally submitted it. The CBFC also maintained that the complaint itself was not legally maintainable, as it merely claimed that objections raised were not considered.
Justice P.T. Asha, however, observed that everything in the matter appeared abnormal, questioning why the certification process was halted immediately after the complaint was received and whether the production house was informed at that stage.
The producers argued that the Examining Committee had unanimously recommended certification, subject to cuts, and questioned how a single committee member could later submit a complaint effectively nullifying the majority view. They said they were informed only at 7.59 pm on January 5 that the film would be sent for re-examination, despite repeated attempts to contact the Board earlier.
The production house stated that it had invested ₹500 crore in the project and that, as per established timelines, certification is usually completed within a week. It also contended that once a majority decision is taken by the Examining Committee, the CBFC cannot suo motu review its own decision, except in cases where there is no majority.
The producers further told the court that they became aware only during the hearing that the complainant was one of the committee members and asserted that such a complaint could at best be treated as a recommendation, not a formal objection.
The CBFC countered these claims, stating that there is a two-tier certification mechanism, that applying for certification on December 18 does not automatically entitle a producer to receive it, and that the Board cannot be restrained from exercising powers vested in it under law. It denied any mala fide intent and said all actions were taken transparently and strictly in accordance with rules.
Noting that such procedural delays are not healthy and could cause serious prejudice to producers, the judge said the court would examine whether due process had been followed. The matter was adjourned with orders reserved, with the court stating that the judgment would be delivered before the scheduled release of the film.
It is noteworthy that both films carry strong political themes, and insiders have suggested that the delay in certification is due to the politically charged narratives they portray.
The delay in issuing censor certificates has become a concern, as national multiplex chains outside Tamil Nadu are unable to open advance bookings without certification.
According to trade analysts, theatres in Tamil Nadu—especially single-screen cinemas—are facing uncertainty, as they need to finalise show timings and open advance bookings. Overseas distributors are also closely monitoring the censor situation. Under normal circumstances, big-budget films typically receive their censor certificates at least a week before release.
Even in strong markets such as Kerala and Karnataka, several release centres have not opened bookings for the film due to the delay in obtaining the censor certificate.
Interestingly, Parasakthi, produced by Dawn Pictures—considered close to the DMK—and distributed Red Giant Movies, of Udhayanidhi Stalin, minister and the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, advanced its release date from January 14 to January 10.
This move has signalled a political rivalry between the ruling DMK and the TVK. It is also to be noted that, Vijay had openly stated during public appearances that the DMK is his party’s main political rival.
According to reports, the DMK does not want Vijay’s film to enjoy a solo release and dominate box-office collections during the Pongal holiday period from 10 to 18 January. At the same time, Vijay aims to ensure that his farewell film strongly appeals to audiences in Tamil Nadu, who also form his voter base.
Vijay enjoys greater star value than Sivakarthikeyan in Tamil Nadu, and it is widely believed that his film will collect more at the box office. Trade data from Vijay’s previous releases show that even films which received negative responses went on to gross over ₹200 crore.
However, trade analysts have pointed out that the release of two major films with just a one-day gap is likely to split box-office collections for both. Some experts view this as an indirect political move by the DMK, allegedly with the support of Red Giant Movies. Vijay and Udhayanidhi Stalin are also known to have had political differences in the past.
A poster of the film ‘Parasakthi’. (X)
Sivakarthikeyan addressed the issue of the release-date clash during the Parasakthi audio launch, stating that he was shocked by the sudden change in his film’s release date. He said the makers had initially tried to avoid a clash and had first planned a Diwali release before shifting to Pongal.
“When Jananayagan was also postponed to Pongal, I was taken aback,” he said. Sivakarthikeyan added that when he raised the issue with the producers, they informed him that investors had already been notified and that election-related factors made any further change impossible.
The Amaran actor also revealed that he spoke to Vijay’s team, who assured him there was no issue, as Vijay himself encouraged both films to release during the extended holiday window. “Vijay sir has entertained audiences for 33 years, and this is his final film. For me, this Pongal is truly an ‘Annan–Thambi’ Pongal,” he said.
Meanwhile, Parasakthi producer Aakash Baskaran told the media that the film was initially scheduled for a January 14 release but was advanced to January 10 following “personal suggestions from theatre owners and distributors.” He clarified that there was no specific agenda behind the change and that the decision was made considering equal screen-sharing suggestions from senior distributors and exhibitors.
Speaking to South First, an industry insider said the change in release date was purely the director Sudha Kongara’s decision. “If the film released on January 14 and Jananayagan received a positive response, they might not get enough screens. Advancing the release makes it a win-win scenario,” the insider said.
Vijay’s Jananayagan is rumoured to be a remake of Balakrishna’s Telugu film Bhagavanth Kesari, directed by Anil Ravipudi.
However, the Jananayagan trailer suggests that the film strongly reflects TVK ideology and may serve as a platform for Vijay’s political entry and his ambition to become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
Director H. Vinoth has also stated that the film is a complete Vijay-centric project, with elements of his political views woven into the narrative.
Earlier Vijay films such as Kaththi, Sarkar, and Mersal featured themes of a common man fighting for the people and were widely seen as subtle launchpads for his political aspirations.
Meanwhile, Parasakthi, directed by Sudha Kongara, focuses on Dravidian politics. The film shares its title with the iconic 1952 classic starring Sivaji Ganesan and scripted by M. Karunanidhi, which was a powerful piece of political propaganda released just two years after the formation of the DMK.
The new Parasakthi is set against the backdrop of the 1960s anti-Hindi imposition movement in Tamil Nadu.
Reports suggest that Sivakarthikeyan plays Chezhian, a man who fights against Hindi imposition, while Atharvaa portrays his opposing brother and Sreeleela plays the female lead. Ravi Mohan appears as the antagonist, and the trailer indicates a strong, content-driven film.
Meanwhile, Ravi Mohan wished Vijay for his final film. In a post on X, he wrote, “The commander achieved victory! #JanaNayagan. @actorvijay Anna, you have already won for me—in everything. The trailer is super realistic, and I’m sure this movie will win many hearts, including mine. Your forever fan and brother.”
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
