E-Paper
HC clears release, directs CBFC to grant certificate to Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’
Justice PT Asha allowed a petition filed by KVN Productions, the producers of the film, and set aside the CBFC chairperson’s decision to send the film for a fresh review
The Madras high court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant a “UA 16+” certificate to the Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan, clearing its theatrical release.
Justice PT Asha allowed a petition filed by KVN Productions, the producers of the film, set aside the CBFC chairperson’s decision to send the film for a fresh review, and directed the Board to issue the certificate forthwith.
Such certification, as per the CBFC rules, means the film is cleared for “unrestricted but with caution for children below 16 years old.”
Justice Asha held that the CBFC chairperson acted without jurisdiction in reopening the certification process after the Examining Committee had cleared the film, subject to cuts and modifications.
Minutes after the single-judge pronounced her verdict, the CBFC, through its counsel, additional solicitor general ARL Sundaresan, approached a bench led by Chief Justice MM Srivastava, seeking an urgent hearing on the challenge to the order. The Chief Justice advised the Board to “file a proper appeal” first and said the court will then consider the same.
In her verdict, Justice Asha held that the complaint that triggered the review appeared to be an “afterthought” and warned that entertaining such complaints would “lead to a dangerous trend.” The court said the grievance raised by the complainant did not justify reopening a concluded certification process. It added that statutory authorities cannot function arbitrarily.
The court set aside the CBFC chairperson’s letter dated January 6, which ordered that the film be placed before the Revising Committee. It held that once the committee recommended certification and the producers carried out the suggested modifications, “the certificate ought to have followed automatically.”
“The exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction,” the court said, noting that the chairperson’s authority to send the film for review stood exhausted once the Board informed the producers that a UA certificate would be granted subject to excisions. It said the Board’s order lacked jurisdiction.
The film producers moved the court this week after the CBFC referred the film to the Revising Committee days before its scheduled January 9 release.
During previous hearings, the court noted that the committee had suggested 27 excisions and modifications, including muting of certain words, and that the producers had accepted and implemented all of them.
Senior counsel Satish Parasaran, appearing for the producers, told the court that the modified version of the film had been resubmitted on December 24. Despite this, the CBFC stalled the issuance of the certificate, and cited the complaint as the basis for referring the film for review.
Parasaran said the delay caused severe financial loss, mental stress, and reputational harm, adding that the production house had invested nearly ₹500 crore and planned a worldwide release across 5,000 screens.He argued that the CBFC failed to disclose the identity of the complainant or the contents of the complaint.
Sundaresan argued that the chairperson was not bound by the Examining Committee’s recommendation and could order a review under the Cinematograph Certification Rules. He told the court that the complaint came from a member of the committee.
Justice Asha expressed disapproval of the Board’s conduct and reminded the CBFC that it functioned as a statutory authority.
The court said it found no legal basis for reopening the certification and cleared the way for the film’s release by directing the immediate issuance of a UA certificate.
