The Madras High Court division bench stayed a single judge’s order directing the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to Vijay’s Jana Nayagan, observing that the certification body was not given adequate time to file a counter before the writ petition was allowed.

Chennai, Jan 09: A division bench of the Madras High Court on Friday stayed a single judge’s order directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to actor-politician Vijay’s last film Jana Nayagan, hours after the order was passed.

CBFC appeal heard urgently

The interim stay was granted by a bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan while entertaining an appeal filed by the CBFC.

The bench took up the matter for urgent hearing on a request made by Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, who appeared for the certification body.

Court questions urgency

The division bench observed that the single judge ought to have given the CBFC adequate time to file a counter affidavit before allowing the writ petition filed by the film’s producer, KVN Productions LLP.

The bench also expressed displeasure over the claim of urgency, noting that the producers had proposed to release the film on January 9 without a certificate in hand.

“You cannot create a false state of emergency and put pressure on the court to pass orders. How can you go ahead with the screening of the movie without any certificate?” the Chief Justice remarked.

Arguments from both sides

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Satish Parasaran, appearing for the production house, sought to impress upon the court the urgency involved.

However, the bench agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBFC, that the writ petition should not have been disposed of within two days of filing and without granting the board an opportunity to defend its decision.

Timeline of proceedings

Earlier, Sundaresan informed the court that the writ petition was filed on January 6 and taken up the same day after a lunch motion. The CBFC was directed to produce records on January 7, orders were reserved, and the judgment was delivered on January 9, without allowing the board to file a detailed counter affidavit.

Single judge’s observations

In her order, Justice P.T. Asha had noted that a five-member examining committee of the CBFC viewed the film on December 19, 2025, and unanimously recommended the grant of a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to certain excisions.

The recommendation was communicated to the producers on December 22, accepted by them, and the edited version was resubmitted on December 24.

The producers were subsequently informed on December 29 that the board had decided to issue a U/A certificate. However, on January 5, the CBFC’s regional officer conveyed that the chairman had decided to refer the film to a revising committee, citing a complaint related to the portrayal of armed forces and the absence of an expert member on the subject in the examining committee.

Justice Asha recorded that the complainant was one of the members of the examining committee itself and expressed surprise at the development, noting that the complaint was made after the suggested changes had already been implemented.

She described the grievance as an afterthought and cautioned that such reversals could undermine the sanctity of the CBFC’s examining committee process.

Also Watch:

Stay to continue pending hearing

The division bench’s interim stay will now keep the single judge’s direction in abeyance pending further hearing of the appeal.