Chennai, Jan 27 (NationPress) In a major blow to the creators of Jana Nayagan, featuring Vijay, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled in favor of an appeal from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and annulled a previous order from a single judge that mandated the swift issuance of a censor certificate for the movie.

The Bench determined that the earlier decision was unsustainable as it intruded into the substance of the dispute at a preliminary stage.

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan of the Division Bench remarked that a writ court, while evaluating an interlocutory application, should not have scrutinized the core issues pertaining to the film’s content.

Labeling the single judge's approach as legally erroneous, the Bench accepted the CBFC’s appeal, nullified the contested order, and sent the matter back for new consideration.

The court also permitted the writ petitioner to modify the petition, a decision likely to postpone the film’s release in theaters.

It was recalled that the Division Bench had already put a hold on the single judge's order on January 9, citing that the Union government had not been afforded adequate time to respond. On January 15, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea from the producer, contesting the Division Bench’s interim stay and the delay in receiving the final censor certificate.

Positioned as Vijay’s last film prior to his full-time political engagement, Jana Nayagan was scheduled for release on January 9, aligning with the Pongal festival. The production company, KVN Productions, claimed to the High Court that there was an unreasonable delay from the CBFC despite adhering to all suggested revisions from the Examining Committee.

The producers stated that they submitted their application for certification on December 18, 2025. After a personal hearing, the Examining Committee recommended a ‘UA 16+’ certification on December 22, 2025, citing elements like violence, fight scenes, gory visuals, and brief references to religious sentiments.

They were instructed to make certain cuts and modifications, which the producers asserted were fully executed, leading to a revised version being resubmitted on December 24. The changes were acknowledged on December 29, after which the producers were informed that the ‘UA 16+’ certificate would be issued.

However, an email dated January 5, 2026, indicated that the film had been sent to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules due to a complaint regarding the film's portrayal of defence forces and potential offense to religious sentiments. It later came to light that the complaint originated from a member of the Examining Committee itself, sparking the legal conflict. The CBFC was represented in the appeal by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan.