Madras High Court stays order clearing Vijay’s Jana Nayagan; reopens censor fight

The stay means that Justice Asha’s direction to issue the certificate cannot be acted upon for now. The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 21, after the Pongal holidays.

The appeal hearing unfolded with unusual intensity and attention, underscoring the stakes involved in a case that sits at the intersection of law, politics, and cinema.

Opening arguments for the CBFC, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan urged the Division Bench to closely examine the single judge’s order. He said the writ petition filed by KVN Productions LLP on January 6 had been heard the same afternoon, with records called for the next day. According to him, the judgment was pronounced on January 9 without giving the CBFC an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.

Sundaresan argued that while the production house had only sought a direction to issue a certificate, the single judge had gone further by quashing the CBFC chairperson’s January 6 decision to refer the film to a revising committee – despite there being no such prayer in the petition.

“This letter itself was never challenged,” he said, adding that no writ of certiorari had been sought against the chairperson’s decision.

[embedded content]

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBFC, echoed those concerns, arguing that the principles of natural justice had been compromised. He contended that the chairperson was empowered under the Cinematograph Certification Rules to refer a film to a revising committee, and that the single judge could not have “moulded the relief” in the absence of a specific challenge or without allowing the statutory authority time to respond.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the production house, questioned how a member of the examining committee could effectively become a complainant after the committee had recommended a U/A 16+ certificate. He submitted that the entire certification process had, in substance, concluded by December 29 after the producers complied with all excisions and modifications.

The Bench, however, repeatedly pressed the producers on the issue of urgency.

“How can a producer fix a release date without a certificate in hand?” the Chief Justice asked, observing that courts, like administrative authorities, were also bound to ensure fair opportunity.

The Chief Justice questioned whether a “false state of urgency” had been created to pressure the court into granting immediate relief. He also asked how the single judge could have directed the CBFC to produce records and passed final orders without affording time to file a counter-affidavit.

Senior advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for KVN Productions, pointed out that there were communications from the CBFC’s regional office in December indicating that certification would follow once cuts were implemented. The Bench remained unconvinced, noting that until a certificate was formally issued, the producer ought to have waited before announcing a release date.

The Bench formally stayed Justice Asha’s ruling and adjourned the writ appeal to January 21.