Jana Nayagan Case Update: What Madras HC Said On The Release Issue of Vijay's Film?

The legal battle surrounding the release of Jana Nayagan, the much-anticipated film starring actor-turned-politician Vijay, returned to the spotlight on Tuesday as the Madras High Court's Division Bench took up a plea filed by the film's makers challenging the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) decision that stalled its release.

The case has drawn significant public and political attention, especially after the Supreme Court last week declined to intervene, making it clear that the matter must be resolved by the Madras High Court. With the apex court stepping aside, all eyes are now on the Division Bench led by the Chief Justice, which is examining whether due process was followed before the single judge granted relief to the producers.

CBFC raises procedural objections

Appearing for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that the single judge's order had been passed in haste and without giving the certification authority sufficient opportunity to respond. The ASG outlined two core objections at the outset: first, that the CBFC was not granted adequate time to file a counter-affidavit, and second, that a crucial communication dated January 6 had never been challenged by the producers in their writ petition, as per Live Law.

"The opportunity to respond is more important when the court believes a wrong has been done by the respondent," the ASG submitted, stressing that the relief granted went beyond what was specifically prayed for. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he argued that courts cannot grant reliefs that have not been sought, and that no exception to this principle has been carved out so far.

However, the Chief Justice questioned this rigid interpretation, pointing out that the powers of a writ court are wide. "What is not sought can also be granted by the court," the Chief Justice observed, echoing the reasoning adopted by the single judge. The ASG responded by stating that this very issue was why the CBFC had approached the Division Bench in appeal.

Time to respond becomes central issue

A key theme during the hearing was whether the CBFC had been given sufficient time to place its case. The ASG contended that while the lunch motion was allowed and papers were served, the court proceeded to hear the matter and reserve orders without allowing even a short window of one or two days for filing a counter, as per Live Law report.

"The rules provide that a respondent should ordinarily have eight weeks to file a counter unless the court directs otherwise," the ASG argued, adding that even a truncated timeline would have ensured fairness. The Chief Justice noted that the court would first have to determine whether the matter could reasonably have been decided within a single day. Only if that threshold was crossed would the bench delve into the merits of the case.

Dispute over CBFC's statutory process

The hearing then shifted to the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act and the CBFC rules. The ASG took the court through the role of the examining committee, advisory panels, regional offices and the Board itself, stressing that recommendations made by the examining committee are not binding.

According to the CBFC, while the examining committee had suggested 14 cuts and there were initial indications that certification could follow, the decision was never final. The process was put on hold after a complaint was received, prompting the Board to direct the regional office to refer the film to a revising committee.

"The decision based on the examining committee's viewing was only an intermediary step, not a final certification," the ASG said, adding that the communication sending the film for review was uploaded on the e-Cinepramaan portal and was within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice repeatedly sought clarity on who had actually viewed the film. The ASG confirmed that it was the examining committee-members of the advisory panel-and not the Board itself. The advisory panel, he emphasised, exists only to assist the Board, which retains the final authority to certify or refuse a film.

Producers' release plans questioned

The CBFC also questioned the producers' urgency, arguing that they had fixed a release date even before the certification process was fully concluded. The ASG pointed out that the producers were aware as early as January 5 that the decision had been put on hold, yet they pressed for immediate relief citing an investment of ₹500 crore.

"They could not have decided the release date beforehand," the ASG argued, suggesting that commercial pressure should not override statutory procedure.

As the hearing concluded for the forenoon, the court indicated it would hear the producers' arguments after lunch. With both sides allotted equal time, the Division Bench is now tasked with deciding whether procedural lapses occurred-and whether the single judge's intervention was justified-before determining the fate of Jana Nayagan's release.