Madras High Court directs CBFC to immediately clear Vijay’s Jana Nayagan for release

The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification to immediately grant final censor clearance for the release of the Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan, holding that the film certification body’s decision to take a relook at the censor process was flawed, as reported by Bar and Bench.

Justice PT Asha delivered the verdict on Friday morning after reserving the matter for orders on Wednesday. The Court directed the CBFC to grant the censor certificate forthwith in accordance with the applicable rules, as earlier recommended by the examining committee.

The filmmakers had approached the Court alleging an unexplained delay by the CBFC in issuing the final censor certificate. Jana Nayagan, which is expected to be Vijay’s final film before his political entry, was scheduled for release on January 9.

An examining committee of the CBFC had initially recommended that the film be certified U/A 16 subject to certain cuts, which were subsequently carried out by the filmmakers. Despite compliance, the film was later referred to a revising committee after a complaint was received raising concerns over the portrayal of defence forces in certain scenes and the possibility of some sequences hurting religious sentiments.

During the proceedings, the Court noted that the CBFC was bound to grant the U/A 16 certificate since the filmmakers had complied with the suggested excisions. When the matter was first heard on January 6, the film’s producer questioned how a complaint could be raised about the content of a film that had not yet been viewed by the general public.

In subsequent hearings, it emerged that the complaint had been made by a member of the examining committee, who claimed that his concerns were not properly recorded. Appearing for the production house, senior advocate Satish Parasaran stated that the filmmakers were kept in the dark about the complaint and argued that the law required the CBFC to act with greater transparency. He further informed the Court that nearly ₹500 crore was at stake and alleged that the CBFC had dealt with the producer’s concerns lightly.

The Court held that it was inappropriate for a member of the examining committee to lodge such a complaint, particularly when his concerns had already been recorded and addressed through edits. It observed that the claim of not being given an adequate opportunity to raise objections appeared to be an afterthought and was motivated.

The judgment stated that entertaining such complaints would set a dangerous precedent, noting that a volte-face by a member of the examining committee after making a recommendation would undermine the sanctity of the committee’s decision-making process.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the CBFC, had argued that there was no malice on the part of the Board and that the chairman was empowered to refer the film to a revising committee, irrespective of the examining committee’s recommendations. He further stated that since the final certificate had not been issued, the chairman was well within his authority to initiate revision proceedings.

The single judge Bench rejected these submissions and ordered the CBFC to grant the U/A 16 certificate without further delay.