On Friday, January 9, the Madras High Court ruled in favor of Jan NayganThe producers asked the CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) to give the film a U/A 16+ certificate. The CBFC immediately challenged that decision and requested a fresh review. After the appeal, the court has put its earlier order on hold for the time being. It also noted that the makers of the Vijay-starrer appear to have created a sense of unnecessary haste regarding the release date of the film, which may have put pressure on the court, as reported by Live Law. The case will be heard again on January 21, which puts a question mark over whether the much-awaited film will be able to release in theaters this month.
Madras High Court order reveals: Vijay’s Jan Nayakan scenes that led to CBFC complaint – National flag scenes, references to army, foreign powers inciting religious conflict
IHNS There is a copy of the court order, which shows that the manufacturer had applied for certification on December 18, 2025. The film was screened for the screening committee on 19 December, and the committee unanimously recommended U/A 16+, subject to modifications. Manufacturers made the deductions and submitted the required Form IX on December 24, with records showing that the excised portions were verified.
Then came the twist. On January 5, the CBFC informed the producers that the ‘competent authority’ had decided to send the film to a vetting committee due to complaints over content issues, particularly claims of hurting religious sensitivities and the depiction of the armed forces.
The complaint, which was resubmitted to the court, made allegations regarding scenes and dialogues from the film. It claimed that the film featured ‘scenes and dialogues’ that suggest instigation of large-scale religious conflict in India by foreign powers. The complainant claimed that this could potentially disturb religious harmony. It also pointed to several references to the Army and alleged that despite such material, no defense expert was included in the inquiry committee.
Another flashpoint mentioned in the order were the scenes involving the national flag, a part which, the court noted, was already asked to be removed during the original examination and was removed.
Importantly, the Court found that the complainant himself was a member of the inquiry committee, and many of the points raised in his complaint overlapped with objections he had already filed, i.e. objections that were subsequently complied with by way of deduction. The judge described the complaint as an ‘afterthought’ and ‘motivated’ and warned that such changes could destroy the sanctity of the CBFC process.
Holding that the chairperson’s power to send a film to the vetting committee ceases once the Board accepts the examination committee’s recommendation (communicated on December 22), the court held that the subsequent referral decision uploaded on January 6 was without jurisdiction.
Also read: Jan Nayakan censor row: Madras HC division bench stays single judge’s order granting UA certificate, hearing adjourned to January 21
