Chennai, 27 Jan

In a setback to the top actor Vijay-starrer Tamil film "Jana Nayagan", the Madras High Court on Tuesday set aside the order of a single judge that directed the CBFC to grant a censor certificate to the movie, and said that certain references to the Army and religious sentiments require consideration.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan stated that the single judge, Justice PT Asha, should have given time to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for filing counter affidavit.

The ruling virtually makes the fate of the film, originally slated for a Pongal release earlier this month, uncertain. The film is stated to be Vijay's last, ahead of his full-fledged political entry. He heads the fledgling Tamiga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) political party.

The Bench allowed an appeal filed by the CBFC, challenging the order of Justice Asha, dated 9 January, which also quashed a communication dated 5 January of the Regional Officer of the censor board, stating that, based on a complaint from one of its members, the matter has been referred to the revising committee by the Chairperson of the Board.

The bench gave liberty to M/s KVN Productions LLP, producer of the mega-budget movie, to amend the prayer and approach the single judge for early hearing of its plea.

Pointing out that the film had some content relating to the Army and religious sentiments, which may disturb the religious harmony in the country and hence the Chairperson had referred the matter to the revising committee, the bench said it requires consideration.

It stated that the single judge is at liberty to decide whether the decision taken to refer the matter to the revising committee is correct or not.

The Bench on 20 January reserved orders on the appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification, against an order passed by Justice Asha, after hearing elaborate arguments from both sides.

Justice Asha, on 9 January, allowed the petition filed by the producer of the film and gave a direction to the CBFC to grant a censor certificate forthwith.

The judge had also quashed a communication dated January 5 from the Regional Officer, informing the producer of the film that, based on a complaint, the Chairperson of the Censor Board had referred the matter to the revising committee. However, on the same day, the First Bench stayed her order.

Originally, on 22 December 2025, the producer received a communication from the Regional Officer from Chennai informing that the 5-member examining committee, which viewed the film, had recommended the screening of the movie and issuance of a censor certificate.

Thereafter, based on a complaint from one of the members of the examining committee, the Chairperson had decided to put on hold the 22 December communication and referred the matter to the revising committee. This was communicated to the producer of the movie on 5 January.