Madras HC Sets Aside Earlier Order, Jana Nayagan Censorship to Fresh Hearing
Madras HC Sets Aside Earlier Order, Jana Nayagan Censorship to Fresh Hearing
Madras High Court remands Jana Nayagan's censoring decision for a fresh hearing, granting CBFC a chance to file a counter affidavit.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on January 27, 2026 allowed a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside the single judge’s January 9 order directing UA 16+ certification for Vijay’s upcoming film Jana Nayagan. The judges held that the single judge ought not to have passed such orders without giving the CBFC a proper opportunity to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition filed by KVN Productions LLP. They also noted that the writ petition was not maintainable for mandamus to compel the CBFC to issue a certificate; instead, it sought certiorari to quash the CBFC chairman’s January 6, 2026 reference to a nine-member revising committee.
Rather than dismissing the petition, the Division Bench granted the production house a chance to amend its prayer and directed the Registry to restore the writ petition and list it for fresh hearing before the single judge if the production house chooses to utilize this opportunity. The bench added that the learned single judge may later decide whether the CBFC chairman’s reference was in accordance with law, but it did not delve into the merits at this stage.
If the production house opts to proceed, the single judge will now consider renoticing the CBFC to file a counter affidavit and then move toward an expeditious disposal of the writ petition on its own merits. The court’s emphasis was on procedure and due process rather than ruling on the substantive merits of the certification itself, indicating that the matter will continue to unfold in a controlled judicial process. The case revolves around the censorship row surrounding Jana Nayagan, Vijay’s much-anticipated project, and how certification procedures should be applied when a government body is called to respond to a petition challenging its actions.
The decision highlights the tension between film industry hopefuls and regulatory bodies on censor credits and the pathways for challenging CBFC decisions. The bench’s order preserves the parties’ rights to be heard and ensures CBFC has a fair chance to present its position before any final determination, keeping the release timeline in flux while legal questions are resolved.
