Law Notify, January 15, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by the producers of Jana Nayagan, the Vijay-starrer awaiting certification, and refused to interfere with the interim stay imposed by the Madras High Court on the film’s release.
A single-judge Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta dismissed the plea moved by KVN Productions, holding that the producers were effectively seeking to bypass the statutory certification process and the appellate framework laid down under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The Court directed them to pursue their remedies before the Madras High Court, where their appeal against the stay order is already pending and listed for hearing on January 20.
The dispute traces back to a January 9 order of a single judge of the Madras High Court, who had directed the Central Board of Film Certification to grant a UA certificate to Jana Nayagan subject to certain modifications. That order also expressed concern over the CBFC’s handling of complaints against the film, warning that excessive scrutiny could have a chilling effect on artistic expression.
Later the same day, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed the single-judge order, observing that the matter warranted closer examination, especially since the CBFC Chairperson had decided to refer the film to a revising committee. The appeal was posted for detailed hearing after the Pongal recess.
Before the Supreme Court, the producers argued that the delay in certification had caused serious commercial loss and had made the planned January 9 release impossible. The Bench, however, declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, stressing that parties cannot seek to short-circuit proceedings by approaching the apex court when the High Court is already seized of the issue.
Justice Datta noted that the certification mechanism under the Cinematograph Act is a self-contained statutory scheme, providing for examination, revision, and appellate oversight. The Court also pointed out that the producers had not directly challenged the CBFC Chairperson’s January 6 decision to place the film before a revising committee, a step specifically permitted under Rule 17 of the 2024 Certification Rules.
The CBFC, which had entered a caveat through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted that no adverse orders should be passed without hearing the statutory authority. The Board maintained that objections raised by an examining committee member, including concerns over the depiction of armed forces insignia, required expert evaluation, and that judicial review over certification decisions is limited.
Reiterating settled law, the Supreme Court observed that while creative expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a), film certification is a permissible restriction under Article 19(2), as recognised in earlier rulings on prior restraint in cinematographic content.
With the Supreme Court refusing to intervene, the immediate fate of Jana Nayagan now hinges on the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Madras High Court on January 20.
