Unicaus NEWS
Jana Nayagan posters. File | Photo Credit: Moorthy M.
A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the “blistering pace” at which the Single Judge directed the issuance of the censor certificate on January 9. The Bench said the producer had not even challenged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman’s January 6 order to send the film before a revising committee.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for KVN, said his client was “ruined”.
“But why do you say that?” Justice Datta asked the senior counsel.
Mr. Rohatgi said films and the publicity generated around them were “perishable commodities”.
“If it [film] is delayed, people lose interest. It stops having any value. I have lost everything,” Mr. Rohatgi lamented.
The Court asked Mr. Rohatgi to raise his arguments before the Madras High Court Division Bench. It asked the High Court Bench to decide the pending petition before it on January 20.
The two-judge Bench of the High Court had stayed the Single Judge order to issue an U/A 16+ certificate to the film, merely hours after it was passed on January 9.
Editorial | Cuts and ratings: On the CBFC, Parasakthi and Jana Nayagan
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the CBFC and its Regional Officer before the Supreme Court.
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.
It had argued that the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules of 2024 empowered the Chairman to refer a movie to the revising committee if he did not agree with the recommendation of the examining panel. The Board had argued that the judicial review on the merits of issuance of censor certificates was limited.
Published – January 15, 2026 11:53 am IST
