Jana Nayagan production house moves Supreme Court

The production house of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan moved the Supreme Court of India on Monday (January 12, 2026) against an order of stay passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court over the certification of the film.

KVN Productions approached the Supreme Court against a January 9 order of a High Court Division Bench, which froze the implementation of a Single Judge Bench’s nod to the issuance of U/A 16+ certificate to the film, effectively stalling its immediate release ahead of Pongal.

The production house has arraigned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its Regional Officer as respondents in the case before the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench’s order came hours after the Single Judge Bench directed the CBFC to issue the censor certificate to the film reported to be Mr. Vijay’s swan song.

The production firm had initially sought an intervention from the High Court on the ground that despite a CBFC examining committee clearing the film for the issuance of U/A 16+ certificate, the Board’s chairman had unilaterally decided to send the movie for review to a revising committee.

The production house’s counsel had submitted before the Single Judge that around ₹500 crore had been invested in the production of the movie and it was expected to hit the silver screen worldwide on January 9, 2026. They had argued that the film had been submitted for certification as early as December 18, 2025.

It was argued during the Single Judge Bench hearing that the five-member examining committee of the CBFC had watched the movie on December 19, 2025 and unanimously recommended issuance of UA 16+ certificate to it after listing out the excisions required to be made. This decision had been communicated to the production house on December 22, 2025.

The producers had made the cuts and re-submitted the edited version on December 24, 2025. Subsequently, the production house was informed on December 29 that the Board had decided to issue a U/A certificate. However, on January 5, in a sudden volte face, the Regional Officer of CBFC claimed the chairman had decided to refer the movie to a revising committee.

The CBFC had countered that one of the five members of the examining committee had sent a complaint to the CBFC chairman stating that his objections were not considered properly before making the recommendation.

The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules of 2024 empowered the chairman to refer a movie to the revising committee if he/she was not satisfied with the recommendations made by the examining committee. The Board argued that the judicial review on the merits of issuance of censor certificates was limited.

Entertaining the CBFC appeal against the Single Judge order, the Division Bench said the Single Judge ought to have granted time for the Board to file its counter affidavit before passing the order in favour of the issuance of the censor certificate for the film.