The Madras High Court on 9 January 2026 directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a U/A 16+ certificate to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. The court’s order followed a petition by the film’s producers, who alleged delays in certification ahead of the planned release. The CBFC responded by seeking an urgent hearing to appeal the High Court’s decision, and the matter was scheduled for further consideration by the Chief Justice’s Bench.
According to The Hindu, the single-judge order required the CBFC to grant the U/A 16+ certificate forthwith, enabling the film’s release during Pongal. The court noted that the examining committee had recommended the certificate, but the CBFC chairperson had referred the film to a revising committee after receiving a complaint from a committee member. The court’s directive was issued after the producers argued that the delay had caused significant financial and reputational harm.
As reported by Hindustan Times, Justice P.T. Asha set aside the CBFC chairperson’s decision to reopen the certification process, stating that the complaint appeared to be an “afterthought.” The court found no legal basis for the review and held that the certificate should have been issued automatically after the producers complied with the required modifications. The court also observed that statutory authorities must not act arbitrarily in such matters.
As highlighted by The News Minute, the CBFC is preparing to appeal the High Court’s order. The court had previously directed the CBFC to provide a copy of the anonymous complaint, which alleged that the film hurt religious sentiments and objected to the portrayal of the armed forces. The judge reiterated that entertaining such complaints after the examining committee’s recommendation would set a dangerous precedent.
As noted in an article by Deccan Herald, the High Court stated, “Entertaining such complaints would give rise to dangerous trend,” and struck down the decision to send the film to the revising committee. The court emphasized that once the recommended modifications were made, the certificate should follow automatically.
“After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought,” the court stated, as referenced in multiple sources.
Further details confirm that the film was submitted to the CBFC on 18 December 2025, and the producers made 27 required cuts before resubmitting. Despite compliance, the certificate was not issued until the court’s intervention. The court ruled that the CBFC chairperson’s authority to refer the film for review was exhausted after the initial recommendation and communication to the producers.
The judgment clarified that the complaint prompting the review came from a member of the examining committee, not the general public. The court found the CBFC’s handling of the process lacking in transparency and rejected arguments that the chairperson retained authority to refer the film for further review after the examining committee’s decision.
During the hearings, arguments revealed that the complaint was filed by a committee member whose objections were not recorded. The CBFC’s counsel maintained that the chairperson could order a review, but the court disagreed, finding the process had already concluded with the committee’s recommendation and the producers’ compliance.
“The certificate ought to have followed automatically,” the court held, underscoring the procedural lapse by the CBFC.
Political reactions intensified as the delay in certification became a point of contention in Tamil Nadu. Supporters of Vijay and his party, Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam, alleged political motives behind the delay, while opposition parties and political observers debated the role of the CBFC and the central government. The issue drew comparisons to previous instances where Vijay’s films faced release hurdles, and calls for transparency in the certification process were reiterated.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.