Jana Nayagan censor row began after CBFC’s revising committee referral.
Madras High Court interventions repeatedly delayed a final certification decision.
Jana Nayagan censorship case remains unresolved after the January 27 order.
Jana Nayagan censor row did not erupt overnight. What began as a routine certification process for Vijay Thalapathy’s final film slowly turned into a prolonged legal dispute involving the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the Madras High Court and multiple judicial interventions. Here is a step-by-step account of Jana Nayagan controversy timeline, covering every key development.
Why the Jana Nayagan CBFC complaint was filed
Jana Nayagan controversy escalated after the CBFC informed the film’s producers that a complaint had been submitted by a member of its Examining Committee, prompting the Chairperson to refer the film to a Revising Committee. As reported by Bollywood Hungama, the complaint alleged that certain scenes and dialogues in Vijay Thalapathy’s film could hurt religious sentiments and raise concerns over the portrayal of the armed forces. It further objected to visuals and narrative elements that were claimed to suggest foreign forces fuelling religious unrest in India, warning that such depictions could disturb communal harmony.
The complaint also flagged references to the Indian Army, arguing that the Examining Committee did not include a defence expert despite the subject matter. Additionally, objections were raised over visuals involving the National Flag, though the court later noted that these had already been addressed during the initial certification stage and removed by the filmmakers. The Madras High Court observed that many issues cited in the complaint repeated concerns already resolved, describing the renewed objections as an afterthought. The court further ruled that once the CBFC accepted the Examining Committee’s recommendation on December 22, the Chairperson no longer had the authority to refer Jana Nayagan to a Revising Committee, rendering the January 6 decision legally unsustainable.
A timeline of the key events in the Jana Nayagan controversy.
December 15–18, 2025: Film ready, certification process begins
By mid-December, Jana Nayagan completed post-production. On December 18, the makers submitted the film to the CBFC’s Chennai regional office, hoping to secure certification in time for a planned early-January release.
December 22–24: Examining committee clears film with modifications
The CBFC’s examining committee screened the film and suggested a U/A 16+ certificate, along with minor cuts, mutes and edits. The producers accepted these recommendations and submitted a revised version on December 24, believing the process was nearing completion.
Late December: Certification appears imminent
After compliance with the suggested changes, communication from the CBFC indicated that certification was likely to be granted. With theatres booked and promotions in motion, the film’s release plans remained intact.
January 5, 2026: Sudden referral triggers Jana Nayagan CBFC issue
Days before release, the producers were informed that the CBFC chairperson had referred the film to a Revising Committee following a complaint. The objection reportedly flagged concerns about certain scenes and their potential impact on public sentiment. This unexpected move stalled the certification and marked the beginning of Jana Nayagan censorship case.
January 6: Producers approach Madras High Court
Facing mounting losses and uncertainty, KVN Productions filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. The producers argued that once changes were accepted and resubmitted, the CBFC could not restart the process without valid procedural grounds.
January 7–8: Hearings begin
The court heard initial arguments from both sides. While no immediate relief was granted, the case was fast-tracked, given the financial stakes and the public interest surrounding Vijay’s final film.
January 9: Single judge rules in favour of the makers
Justice P.T. Asha directed the CBFC to issue a U/A certificate, stating that the chairperson’s referral to a revising committee was procedurally flawed. The order briefly revived hopes that Jana Nayagan censor certificate delay would end. The same day the CBFC challenged the single-judge order before a division bench of the Madras High Court, following which there was a stay order, citing they weren’t given enough time to present their case.
January 12–15: Makers move Supreme Court which declines intervention
The producers approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief. On January 15, the apex court declined to intervene and asked them to pursue the matter before the High Court.
January 20: Division bench reserves its verdict
On January 20, the Madras High Court division bench heard the CBFC argue that it had been denied a proper hearing before the single judge ordered the certification of Jana Nayagan. The Board said the referral to a revising committee was well within its powers under the law, especially after a complaint flagged concerns about the film’s content. According to the CBFC, rushing the certification without letting it fully present its case weakened the certification process itself.
The producers pushed back, saying the Board had already cleared the film after suggested edits were made. Their lawyers told the court that reopening the process at the last minute had no legal basis, especially when the disputed scenes were no longer part of the final cut. They argued that the delay caused serious financial damage and uncertainty, and asked the bench to uphold the earlier order that directed the CBFC to issue the certificate.
January 27: Major setback as case sent back
On January 27, the Madras High Court division bench set aside the earlier order that had directed the CBFC to issue a censor certificate for Jana Nayagan. The judges said the single judge had moved too quickly and decided the matter without giving the certification board enough time to present its side of the case. According to the bench, this went against basic principles of fair hearing.
During the hearing, the court focused on how the CBFC chairperson’s decision to send the film to a revising committee was struck down without examining whether that decision itself was legally sound. The judges pointed out that the issue was not just about the film’s content, but about whether proper procedure had been followed before the court stepped in.
As a result, the bench sent the case back to a single judge for a fresh hearing. It also asked the producers to amend their petition to directly challenge the CBFC chairperson’s referral order. This effectively reset the legal process, ensuring that the certification dispute would not be resolved immediately.
Why the Jana Nayagan controversy matters
Jana Nayagan censor row timeline highlights deeper tensions between creative expression, regulatory authority and judicial oversight. Directed by H Vinoth, Jana Nayagan is widely seen as a politically charged drama and marks Vijay Thalapathy’s final on-screen appearance before his full-time entry into public life. That context has only heightened scrutiny around the certification process.
With Jana Nayagan already cleared in several international markets, the prolonged delay in India has raised questions about inconsistencies in the country’s censorship process and the degree of discretion exercised at the final stage. An earlier order by Justice P.T. Asha of the Madras High Court had directed the CBFC to grant the film a U/A certificate, but this was later set aside by a division bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, which sent the matter back for a fresh hearing. For now, Jana Nayagan case verdict updates offer little clarity, with Vijay Thalapathy’s film remaining in legal limbo as it awaits a fresh examination by a single judge.
