LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

Producers of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan move Supreme Court against Madras High Court stay on CBFC certification

12/01/2026BlogNo Comments

The producers of the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring actor Vijay, have approached the Supreme Court challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed the single-judge direction directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant certification for the film.

KVN Productions LLP filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Division Bench order passed on january 9, which stayed the relief granted by a single-judge Bench of the High Court. The matter has gained heightened attention as the film, promoted as Vijay’s final cinematic project amid his recent foray into politics through the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), was scheduled for a Pongal release on January 9, 2026.

The controversy stems from procedural developments before the CBFC. An Examining Committee of the Board’s Chennai Regional Office had recommended a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to minor edits, which the producers implemented and resubmitted. The Regional Office subsequently confirmed certification, but technical issues in uploading the final version delayed completion. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by one of the Examining Committee members alleging that certain scenes could potentially offend religious sentiments and included depictions of the defence forces, warranting review by a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Acting on the complaint, the CBFC Chairperson referred the film to the Revising Committee, despite the Examining Committee’s prior recommendation.

The single-judge Bench of the Madras High Court initially directed the CBFC to certify the film without delay, holding that the Chairperson’s decision to suo motu refer the matter to a Revising Committee was procedurally unsustainable, particularly as the filmmakers had complied with all suggested edits. The ruling emphasised the producers’ legitimate expectation of timely certification and highlighted the potential infringement of their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

However, hours later, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice MM Shrivastava stayed the single-judge order on the ground that the Central government and the CBFC had not been afforded adequate opportunity to respond. The Division Bench adjourned the matter for further hearing, creating uncertainty over the film’s release schedule.

In its appeal before the Supreme Court, KVN Productions contends that the Division Bench’s stay frustrates statutory procedures under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the filmmakers’ rights under Article 19. The top court will now examine whether the CBFC Chairperson exceeded jurisdiction by referring the matter to the Revising Committee after provisional clearance and whether procedural lapses justify the Division Bench’s stay. The case implicates broader questions concerning the balance between regulatory oversight, creative freedom, and timely certification of films.

The post Producers of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan move Supreme Court against Madras High Court stay on CBFC certification appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • West Bengal voter roll revision: EC sets up 19 Tribunals for appeals under Supreme Court oversight
  • Newshounds on social media watch out! Govt proposes amendments to IT Rules that may impact them
  • West Bengal elections: Calcutta HC dismisses PIL challenging ECI transfer of bureaucrats, police officers
  • Vedanta approaches Supreme Court over Adani’s Jaiprakash Associates resolution plan
  • Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies Property Rights in absence of children under Hindu Succession Act

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.