Madras High Court Directs CBFC to Grant UA Certificate to Vijay’s ‘Jana Nayagan’
The Madras High Court on Friday, January 9, directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately issue a U/A certificate to the upcoming Tamil film “Jana Nayagan”, starring Vijay.
The movie’s release had been delayed following a complaint alleging that its content hurt religious sentiments. Justice P.T. Asha, while delivering the order, stated:
“After examining the materials, it is clear that the complainant’s grievance appears to be an afterthought.” The court also warned that entertaining such complaints could lead to a “dangerous trend.”
The film’s producer, KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, informed the court that on December 22, the Regional Office of the CBFC had communicated that the Examining Committee recommended granting a U/A certificate, provided certain edits and modifications were made. These changes were completed, and the film was resubmitted. On December 29, the Regional Office confirmed that the film would receive the certificate.
However, on January 5, the producer received a notice stating that the competent authority had decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, citing the complaint.
The court held that this action was without jurisdiction. Once the Examining Committee’s recommended modifications are implemented, the certificate should be automatically granted. Justice Asha further stated:
“The chairperson’s exercise of power is without jurisdiction, as the authority to send the film for review stood relinquished after informing that a UA certificate would be granted subject to the required edits.”
Using its inherent powers, the court set aside the CBFC chairperson’s letter referring the film to the Revising Committee. It allowed the petition and directed the CBFC to issue the U/A certificate immediately, clearing the path for the movie’s release.
The order follows a hearing where Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran represented the production house and Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan appeared for the CBFC. KVN Productions had argued that reopening a certificate already recommended was illegal.
The court further noted that since the CBFC chairperson’s action was without jurisdiction, the High Court could, using its inherent powers, modify the relief. Consequently, the court set aside the chairperson’s letter referring the film to the Revising Committee, allowed the petition, and directed the CBFC to issue the UA certificate immediately.
The order comes after the court had reserved its decision on Wednesday, following arguments by Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran for KVN Productions and Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan for the CBFC. KVN Productions had contended that reopening a certificate already recommended by the Examining Committee was illegal.
The CBFC, on the other hand, argued that the Chairperson is not bound by the committee’s recommendation and has the authority to order a review even after the committee has viewed the film. They cited Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, stating that the Chairperson may differ from the committee’s opinion suo motu or based on received information, including complaints.
It was further argued that if even a single committee member raised objections after examining the film, the Chairperson could consider those concerns and refer the movie to the Revising Committee. In this case, it was claimed that one committee member had submitted a complaint stating that their objections were not considered.
Countering this argument, the production house contended that a committee member cannot transform themselves into a complainant. They submitted that the law distinguishes between committee recommendations and formal complaints, and once a majority decision is taken by the Examining Committee, the opinion of a single member cannot invalidate the collective decision.
