The Board argued that the petition was not filed challenging the re-examination decision, but only sought immediate certification.
Published Jan 20, 2026 | 2:15 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 20, 2026 | 2:15 PM
Jana Nayagan is reportedly Vijay's last film. Now on, he will be focusing on politics.
Synopsis: The hearing in the case related to the censoring of the Tamil film Jana Nayagan commenced before the bench of Madras High Court Chief Justice, with both parties seeking 30 minutes each to present their arguments.
The hearing in the case related to the censoring of the Tamil film Jana Nayagan commenced on Tuesday, 20 January, before the bench of Madras High Court Chief Justice, with both parties seeking 30 minutes each to present their arguments.
Appearing for the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan submitted arguments before the bench. The single judge is currently reading the petition filed by the film’s production company.
CBFC informed the court that it had conveyed its decision to subject the film to re-examination on 5 January. However, the producers filed their petition on 6 January. The Board argued that the petition was not filed challenging the re-examination decision, but only sought immediate certification.
It was pointed out that when the matter came up before the judge on 6 January, the production house was directed to file relevant documents, which the Board has now placed before the court. CBFC said it had sought time to file a counter affidavit, but no such time was granted, and an order was passed on 9 January directing immediate issuance of the certificate.
CBFC further stated that the producers relied on a communication dated 22 December to seek certification. The Board said it had suggested modifications in 14 scenes and assured that certification would be granted once the changes were carried out. After the changes were made, the producers again sought certification.
However, CBFC submitted that subsequently, complaints were received against the film. A complaint was forwarded from the Chennai regional office to the Mumbai headquarters, following which a letter dated 29 December was issued requesting that the certification process be kept on hold. Correspondence was exchanged between the Mumbai head office and the Chennai office in this regard.
During the hearing, the judges sought clarity on the certification procedure. CBFC explained the process and stated that the complaint letter was written by a regional officer. When the court asked whether the officer who wrote the letter had viewed the film, CBFC responded that the officer had not watched it, but five other authorised members had.
The judges also sought clarification on whether CBFC members or advisory panel members had viewed the film. The Board replied that only those authorised under the rules to view films had examined it.
The Board argued that fixing the release date was itself a mistake on the part of the producers. It informed the court that the decision to subject the film to re-examination was uploaded online on 5 January and that the production company was fully aware of this development.
The Board contended that once a decision had been taken to refer the film for re-examination, the writ petition had become infructuous. However, the single judge did not accept this argument.
The Board further stated that the earlier communication dated 22 December — indicating that a certificate would be issued if certain changes were carried out — was formally withdrawn before informing the producers about the decision to send the film for re-examination.
The Board also submitted that if the court was of the view that any fault had been committed on its part, the single judge ought to have given it an opportunity to clarify its position and establish that no wrongdoing had occurred.
The judges observed that courts have the authority to grant even reliefs that are not specifically sought, which, according to them, is what the single judge had done in this case. The Board responded that it was precisely because of this that it had approached the appellate court.
While the judges reiterated that the court has wide powers, the Board maintained that any decision must be taken only after granting a proper opportunity of hearing. With this, the Board concluded its arguments.
The Board sought the setting aside of the single judge’s order on the grounds that no time was granted for filing a counter-affidavit and that the decision to subject the film to re-examination was not challenged.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose.)
