Unicaus NEWS
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan will pronounce the verdict that they had reserved on January 20, 2026 after hearing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan for the CBFC and senior counsel Satish Parasaran, assisted by Vijayan Subramanian, for KVN Productions LLP.
During the course of arguments, the Division Bench had insisted both sides first make their submissions on the preliminary issue as to whether the single judge was justified in disposing of the production house’s writ petition by simply calling for the records and without granting an opportunity to the CBFC to file a counter affidavit.
The Bench also wanted to know whether the single judge was right in quashing CBFC’s Chairman’s January 6, 2026 decision, to refer the movie to a nine-member revising committee, though the production house had not filed a writ of certiorari challenging that decision but had only sought a writ of mandamus directing the board to issue U/A 16+ certificate as it had been recommended by a five-member examining committee.
It was after the counsel made their submissions on the two preliminary issues, the Division Bench went ahead hearing them on the merits of the case with the production house questioning the authority of the CBFC Chairman to refer the movie to the revising committee after the examining committee had made its recommendation to issue U/A 16+ certificate and the CBFC asserting that the chairman was empowered to do so.
During the course of arguments, Mr. Sundaresan said the production house had filed its writ petition on January 6, 2026, and it was heard by the single judge in the afternoon on the same day after granting a lunch motion. Thereafter, the CBFC was directed to produce the records on January 7, 2026, when the judge perused the documents, heard both side and reserved orders on the writ petition.
Thereafter, the orders were pronounced on January 9, 2026, not only directing the CBFC to issue the U/A 16+ certificate but also quashing the CBFC Chairman’s decision, uploaded on the e-cinepramaan portal on January 6, though that had not been challenged by the production house at all, the ASG complained. He also said the board was not granted an opportunity to file a detailed counter affidavit.
Also Read | ‘Jana Nayagan’: Why ‘Thalapathy’ Vijay’s ruse to remix ‘Bhagavanth Kesari’ might be a winner?
On the other hand, Mr. Parasaran told the court that the production house had submitted an application before the CBFC, under the Tatkal scheme, as early as on December 18, 2025 and made a public announcement that the movie would be released on January 9, 2026. The examining committee watched the movie on December 19, 2025, and all the five members unanimously decided to issue U/A 16+ certificate subject to certain excisions.
The examining committee’s recommendation was conveyed to the production house on December 22, 2025. Immediately, the latter accepted the recommendation and carried out the excisions before re-submitting the movie on December 24, 2025. However, there was a lull thereafter and lack of response from the board despite the producers sending repeated reminders for issuance of certification.
Suddenly, on January 5, 2026, the production house was informed that the CBFC Chairman had decided to refer the movie to a revising committee, and hence, it rushed to the court with the writ petition on January 6, 2026. It was only in the court that the CBFC revealed that the reference was made pursuant to a complaint received by the CBFC Chairman from one of the five members in the examining committee, Mr. Parasaran said.
He also questioned as to how a member who had recorded his impressions and recommendations immediately after watching the movie on December 19, 2025, could subsequently send a complaint to the chairman stating that the movie had several references to the Indian Army but there was no expert on the subject in the examining committee and that there were also some scenes related to religious conflict.
Mr. Parasaran said, the production house had edited out all the visuals, as per the recommendations made by the examining committee, and it would be absurd to expert the producers to re-introduce those portions back in the movie before submitting it for a review by the revising committee.
