The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by the producers of Jana Nayagan, the Vijay-starrer awaiting certification, refusing to interfere with the interim stay granted by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on the film’s release.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the plea moved by KVN Productions, holding that the petition amounted to an attempt to bypass the statutory certification framework and the appellate hierarchy envisaged under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The Court directed the producers to pursue their remedies before the Madras High Court, where the appeal against the stay order is already pending and scheduled for hearing on January 20.
The controversy arises from a January 9 order of a single judge of the Madras High Court directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a UA certificate to Jana Nayagan upon incorporation of certain modifications. The order also expressed reservations over the CBFC’s consideration of complaints relating to the film, cautioning that excessive intervention could have a chilling effect on artistic expression.
However, the single-judge order was stayed the same day by a Division Bench of the High Court, which took the view that the matter required closer scrutiny, particularly in light of the CBFC Chairperson’s decision to refer the film to a revising committee. The High Court listed the appeal for detailed hearing after the Pongal recess.
Before the Supreme Court, the producers sought urgent relief, contending that the delay in certification had caused irreparable commercial harm and rendered the film’s scheduled January 9 release unviable. The Bench, however, declined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasising that parties cannot seek to fast-track relief by approaching the apex court when the High Court is already seized of the matter.
Justice Datta observed that the certification process under the Cinematograph Act is a self-contained statutory regime, providing for examination, revision, and appellate oversight. The Court noted that the producers had not directly challenged the CBFC Chairperson’s January 6 decision to place the film before a revising committee, a course expressly permitted under Rule 17 of the 2024 Certification Rules.
The CBFC, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had entered a caveat before the Supreme Court, urging that no adverse orders be passed without hearing the statutory authority. The Board maintained that objections raised by a member of the examining committee—particularly regarding the depiction of armed forces insignia—necessitated expert review, and that the scope of judicial review over certification decisions remains limited.
The Supreme Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that while creative expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a), film certification constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), as recognised in decisions such as K.A. Abbas v. Union of India and subsequent rulings governing prior restraint in cinematographic content.
With the apex court refusing to intervene, the fate of Jana Nayagan now rests with the Madras High Court, which is expected to hear and decide the pending appeal on January 20.
The post Vijay film certification row: Supreme Court tells producers to approach Madras High Court appeared first on India Legal.