Abhiruchi Cookery Show -13th April

In a significant setback for the makers of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday allowed an appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside a single-judge order directing the immediate grant of censor certification for the film.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Arul Murugan, observed that the earlier order was legally flawed as it ventured into the merits of the dispute at an interim stage. It noted that a writ court, while considering an interlocutory plea, should not examine the substance of complaints raised against the film’s content.

The Division Bench allowed the CBFC’s appeal, set aside the single-judge order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, while also granting liberty to the writ petitioner to amend the petition. This move is expected to further delay the film’s theatrical release.

The Bench recalled that it had already stayed the single-judge order on January 9, citing that the Union government had insufficient time to respond. Later, on January 15, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the producer’s plea challenging the Division Bench’s interim stay and the delay in issuing the final censor certificate.

Jana Nayagan, touted as Vijay’s final film before his full-time political entry, was initially slated for release on January 9, coinciding with Pongal. The producer, KVNcers, submitted the film for certification on December 18, 2025. After a personal hearing, the Examining Committee recommended a ‘UA 16+’ certificate on December 22, citing violence, fight sequences, gory visuals, and brief references to religious sentiments.

The producers implemented the requested modifications, resubmitted the film on December 24, and received confirmation of compliance on December 29. However, an email on January 5, 2026, informed them that the film had been referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, following a complaint alleging improper portrayal of defence forces and potential hurt to religious sentiments. The complaint was later revealed to have been filed by a member of the Examining Committee itself, leading to the ongoing legal dispute.