‘Jana Nayagan’ Release Uncertain After Madras HC Order

On Tuesday, a division bench of the Madras High Court annulled a single judge’s order instructing the censor board to approve Vijay’s film ‘Jana Nayagan’ for theatrical release.

HC quashes order to release ‘Jana Nayagan’

The initial bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan subsequently returned the matter to the single judge for renewed evaluation after providing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) sufficient chance to argue its position.

Pointing to grave accusations made by a board member concerning the film’s content—including sequences showing foreign entities inciting unrest in the nation, and issues related to religious unity—the bench noted that the single judge should have allowed the CBFC an opportunity to argue its position.

The bench noted that although KVN Productions LLP’s petition merely aimed to obtain a certificate for the film’s theatrical release and did not contest the chairperson of the CBFC’s referral of the film to a revising committee, the single judge proceeded to annul the order made by the chairperson.

“The sole judge ought not to have addressed the merits of the case without any request contesting the chairperson’s order,” the court stated, allowing the petitioner the freedom to appropriately amend the prayer.

The bench issued the order while permitting an appeal filed by CBFC contesting the ruling of the single judge. Representing CBFC, additional advocate-general A R L Sundaresan, with the help of advocate A R Sakthivel, stated that the board was not given a chance to submit its counter-affidavit in response to the plea filed by the film’s creators before the single judge

He additionally stated that the sole judge annulled the board’s communication dated January 5 regarding the film’s review by the revising committee, despite the fact that it was not contested by the petitioner, KVN Productions LLP.

Senior advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the producer, contended that the CBFC’s regional office unanimously advised awarding a UA certificate to the film, and this was communicated to the producer. Nevertheless, a member eventually chose to act differently and filed a complaint about the film, which he claimed was illegal.

The choice to evaluate the film was made following a grievance from a member of the review committee. He added that members of the examining committee could never act as the complainant according to the statute

---

---