Jana Nayagan Court Case Hearing Time: Madras HC's Verdict To Decide Fate of Vijay's Film Release

The Madras High Court will pronounce its verdict today in the much-discussed Jana Nayagan case, a film starring actor-turned-politician Vijay. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, will decide on the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) appeal against a single judge's order that directed the Board to grant a UA certificate to the movie.

Jana Nayagan Court Hearing Time

The matter is expected to come up for hearing at 10.30 pm today. The verdict will give more clarity on its release date.

On January 20, the Bench had reserved its orders after an intense three-hour hearing. The proceedings revolved around questions of procedure, statutory authority, and natural justice. Importantly, the Bench had earlier stayed the single judge's directive, leaving the film's release in limbo.

Senior advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the producers, highlighted the commercial strain caused by the delay. He revealed that Amazon had warned of legal action if clarity on certification was not provided by December 31. With heavy investments already sunk, the producers argued that the opaque certification process had placed them in a precarious position.

The CBFC, represented by Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, raised two preliminary objections. First, the Board claimed it was not given adequate time to file a counter-affidavit. Second, it argued that the producers had not formally challenged the January 6 communication referring the film to a Revising Committee. According to the CBFC, the single judge's intervention was procedurally flawed and granted reliefs not specifically sought-something impermissible under Supreme Court precedents.

The ASG stressed that certification decisions must follow the statutory framework under the Cinematograph Act. He explained that the examining committee's recommendations were not binding and that the Board retained authority to refer films to a Revising Committee, especially when complaints were received. In this case, concerns were raised about the portrayal of the armed forces, which justified further scrutiny.

Parasaran countered that the regional office had already communicated a unanimous recommendation to certify the film with cuts. He argued that once such a decision was conveyed, it could not be reopened merely because one member later disagreed. He accused the CBFC of allowing a minority opinion to override the majority and criticised the lack of transparency, noting that several communications were uploaded to the e-Cinepramaan portal only after the writ petition was filed.

The judges repeatedly questioned whether the CBFC had been given sufficient opportunity to respond. The Chief Justice remarked that the court must first decide whether the single judge was right in concluding the matter within a day. Only then could the merits be examined. The Bench also expressed concern about the broader implications of bypassing procedural safeguards, warning that urgency alone could not justify such shortcuts.

With arguments concluded, the Division Bench reserved its orders. The verdict will not only determine the fate of Jana Nayagan but also set an important precedent for how film certification disputes are handled in India.