Jana Nayagan Hearing: Madras High Court Examines CBFC Process
The Madras High Court on Monday heard detailed arguments in the Jana Nayagan hearing, a closely watched legal battle over the delayed certification of the Vijay-starrer, with the court questioning the Central Board of Film Certification’s process and the makers pressing for clarity on the film’s release timeline.
The case was taken up after producers KVN Productions moved the court, citing prolonged delays by the CBFC that have stalled the theatrical release of the big-budget Tamil film. The hearing assumes significance given the scale of the project, the commercial stakes involved, and its wider implications for film certification norms.
What the court examined
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan heard submissions from both sides. The court closely examined whether the CBFC followed due process while sending the film to a revising committee and whether its communications to the producers met the standards of transparency required under the Cinematograph Act.
During the Jana Nayagan hearing, the bench flagged concerns that accepting urgent reliefs without a settled procedure could set a risky precedent, potentially allowing parties to bypass established certification timelines.
CBFC calls cuts “intermediary”
Representing the CBFC, the Additional Solicitor General told the court that the 14 cuts suggested to Jana Nayagan were only an “intermediary step” and not the final decision. The board maintained that the chairperson had not yet issued a final order on certification.
The CBFC also argued that the regional office merely communicated the board’s recommendation and that any final certification would follow only after the revising committee completed its review. According to the board, the communication issued earlier should not be treated as a final order.
Producers question transparency
Senior advocate appearing for the producers countered that the lack of timely communication and clarity had directly impacted the film’s release plans. The makers argued that all required edits were carried out and submitted within time, but subsequent updates were either delayed or not uploaded on the official certification portal.
The producers further submitted that prolonged uncertainty over certification had financial implications for the project, including distribution commitments and release scheduling, though the court cautioned against using investment figures as grounds for seeking immediate relief.
Court’s key observations
On legal procedure
The bench observed that courts must be cautious while granting reliefs that were not specifically sought, especially in regulatory matters like film certification. It noted that certification involves statutory timelines and layered scrutiny, which should not be short-circuited.
On revising committee timelines
The court sought clarity on how long a revising committee is permitted to take under the rules, with the CBFC stating that decisions are expected within a defined timeframe unless exceptional circumstances arise.
On precedent
The Chief Justice warned that entertaining last-minute pleas without full procedural compliance could encourage similar petitions in future cases, affecting the broader certification framework.
Why this hearing matters
The Jana Nayagan hearing is being closely tracked by the Tamil film industry as it highlights ongoing concerns around certification delays, communication gaps, and the balance between creative freedom and regulatory oversight.
With Jana Nayagan reportedly mounted on a massive scale and carrying high audience expectations, the outcome of the case could influence how future big-ticket films navigate certification hurdles.
What happens next
The Madras High Court is expected to continue examining the matter, with further submissions likely from both the CBFC and the producers. For now, the film’s release date remains uncertain, pending clarity on certification and the court’s final observations.
The case underscores a recurring tension in Indian cinema between regulatory processes and release timelines, making the Jana Nayagan hearing a potentially important reference point for future disputes in the film industry.
