Hours after a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court directed the CBFC to grant censor clearance for Jana Nayagan, a Division Bench stayed the order, stalling the Vijay-starrer’s Pongal release.
The court issued a stay after Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the CBFC, made an urgent mention before the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, seeking an immediate hearing of a writ appeal challenging the earlier order.
After hearing preliminary arguments, the court ordered a temporary stay on the single judge’s direction to grant a U/A certificate and said the matter would now be heard in detail on January 21, after the Pongal holidays. This means that the film will not be released until after January 21.
What is happening with ‘Jana Nayagan’?
‘Jana Nayagan’, widely billed as Vijay’s final film before his full-time turn into politics, was slated for a January 9 release. With the date approaching, the producers knocked on the doors of the High Court, alleging unexplained delays by the CBFC despite the film having complied with all cuts recommended by the Examining Committee.
The dispute took a sharper turn after the film was sent to a Revising Committee following a complaint that claimed the movie portrayed the defence forces in an improper light and risked hurting religious sentiments. It was later revealed that the complaint had been filed by a member of the Examining Committee itself.
According to the producers, the application for censor certification had been submitted on December 18, 2025. The producers argued that the prolonged certification process threatened to derail the film’s planned release and fuel uncertainty around what was being promoted as a milestone moment in Vijay’s career.
What changed in 4 hours?
The controversy started from the order passed by Justice PT Asha earlier in today (January 9). The order raised concerns about the functioning of the Examining Committee constituted by the CBFC. The judge had observed that allowing members of the committee to retract or contradict their own certification recommendations could set a “dangerous trend” and compromise the sanctity of the certification process. The bench then ruled in the favour of the producers.
Later on Friday (January 9), the HC heard detailed submissions in the CBFC’s appeal against the single judge’s ruling, which had found fault with the manner in which the certification process was handled. The Chief Justice-led Bench questioned the urgency with which the writ appeal was filed and examined whether the CBFC had been denied a fair opportunity to place its case on record before the single judge.
At the core of the CBFC’s challenge was the argument that procedural safeguards under the Cinematograph Act had not been followed. The Board contended that its statutory powers and internal processes had been undermined by the earlier order.
CBFC’s arguments
Appearing for the CBFC, the ASG argued before the Division Bench that the Board was not given sufficient time to file a counter affidavit before the single judge. According to a report by Live Law, he submitted that the court had quashed a letter dated January 6 issued by the CBFC chairperson, even though that communication was not specifically challenged in the writ petition.
Senior Advocate and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further argued that while courts have the power to mold relief, such power could not be stretched to set aside an order that was never under challenge. He cautioned that doing so would render statutory provisions meaningless. The CBFC also maintained that its decision to send the film to a Revising Committee had been communicated to the producers even before the writ petition was taken up.