Jana Nayagan Case Update: What Arguments Did Both Sides Present in Madras HC Today?

The Madras High Court on Tuesday reserved its orders in the appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) challenging a single judge's directive to grant a UA certificate to actor-turned-politician Vijay's Tamil film Jana Nayagan. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan took the matter under consideration after a nearly three-hour-long hearing marked by detailed arguments on procedure, statutory powers and principles of natural justice. The Bench had earlier stayed the single judge's order.

During the hearing, the court was also informed that the prolonged uncertainty over certification had serious commercial implications. Senior advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for the producers, told the Bench that on December 31, Amazon had communicated to the production house that it would initiate legal action if there was no clarity on the film's status. He added that substantial investments had already been made and the lack of transparency in the certification process had put the producers in a difficult position, according to Live Law.

At the heart of the appeal were two preliminary objections raised by the CBFC. Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, representing the certification body, argued that the single judge had proceeded without giving the Board adequate time to file a counter-affidavit. He further contended that the producers had not challenged the January 6 communication by which the film was referred to a Revising Committee, and therefore the court could not have gone into the validity of that decision.

According to the ASG, any challenge to the certification process could only be examined in a properly framed writ of certiorari after issuing notice. He submitted that the single judge had granted reliefs that were not specifically prayed for, something which, as per Supreme Court precedents, was impermissible. While acknowledging that writ courts have wide powers, he maintained that procedural safeguards, particularly the right to respond, could not be diluted.

The Bench repeatedly questioned whether the CBFC had been afforded sufficient opportunity. The Chief Justice observed that the court would first have to decide whether the matter could have been conclusively heard and decided within a day. Only if that issue was answered in the affirmative would it be necessary to examine the merits of the dispute.

A substantial portion of the hearing was devoted to understanding the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act and the CBFC Rules. The ASG explained the roles of the examining committee, advisory panel, regional office and the Board, emphasising that recommendations of the examining committee were not binding. He argued that the decision suggesting certification subject to 14 cuts was only an intermediary step and not a final decision. Until a certificate is formally issued, the Board retains the power to refer the film to a Revising Committee, especially upon receiving a complaint.

The ASG also defended the Board's action in putting the process on hold after a complaint was received, including an allegation relating to the depiction of armed forces. He stated that it was incorrect to suggest that a member of the examining committee could not raise concerns at a later stage and that the Chairperson had the authority to consider such inputs and, if necessary, seek expert opinion.

Countering these submissions, senior advocate Satish Parasaran argued that the CBFC's regional office had already communicated a unanimous recommendation of the examining committee to certify the film subject to cuts. He contended that once such an intimation was issued, the matter could not have been reopened by referring it to a Revising Committee. He stressed that even if one member subsequently expressed a different view, the majority decision of the committee continued to hold the field, and in the present case, a minority opinion was being allowed to prevail.

Parasaran further argued that what was uploaded on the e-Cinepramaan portal was only an intimation that the film was being sent for review and not a formal order. Since no speaking order of the Chairperson or the Board had been served on the producers, he maintained that there was nothing substantive for them to challenge. He pointed out that several communications and remarks were uploaded only after the writ petition was filed, undermining transparency.

The Bench sought repeated clarification on where the actual decision of the Board was recorded. The Chief Justice noted that despite the matter travelling from the writ court to the appellate court, the alleged decision of the Chairperson was not clearly available on record. The ASG responded that the decision had been uploaded on the e-Cinepramaan portal and that originals had been produced before the single judge, including the complaint, in a sealed cover.

As arguments progressed, the court also expressed concern about the broader implications of deciding matters without granting adequate time to the opposite party. The Chief Justice remarked that if urgency alone were treated as sufficient, every litigant could seek similar indulgence, potentially undermining procedural fairness.

With both sides concluding their submissions, the Bench reserved its orders, making it clear that the preliminary issue of whether the CBFC was denied adequate opportunity would be addressed first. The decision is expected to have significant implications not just for Jana Nayagan, but also for how film certification disputes are handled going forward.