Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan certification Row reaches supreme court

The producer of the Tamil film Jana Nayagan , starring actor-turned-politician Vijay, moved the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed a single-judge directive directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant the film a censor certificate.

The dispute began when the CBFC, which must clear all films before release, referred the film to a revising committee on January 6, despite earlier recommendations for a U/A certificate from its examining committee. On January 9, Justice PT Asha of the Madras High Court directed the CBFC to immediately grant certification, holding that once the board had decided to approve the film, the chairperson could not override that decision by sending it for review.

Hours later, a division bench, comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, issued an interim stay on the single judge’s order. The bench reasoned that the CBFC had not been given sufficient opportunity to file its response, putting the film’s release, originally scheduled for Pongal (Jan 9), in limbo.

Jana Nayagan is an action-drama with political undertones , depicting the journey of a common man rising to prominence as a community leader. The story, set against a backdrop of social justice and civic issues, resonates with Vijay’s political persona, making it highly anticipated as his final film before fully entering politics with his party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) . The film has drawn attention for its alleged political overtones , including themes that mirror contemporary political debates in Tamil Nadu.

Opposition leaders and some political parties accused the CBFC of targeting the film for political reasons, while critics maintain that the delay was a procedural matter. Reports indicate that scenes related to religious sentiments and national symbols , including visuals of the armed forces, were under scrutiny, though the exact content has not been publicly disclosed.

In its Supreme Court appeal, KVN Productions LLP argued that the referral to the revising committee and the resulting delay were procedurally unfair, especially since the examining committee had already recommended certification with minor edits. The producers emphasized that the complainant whose objection triggered the review was unidentified, and they sought a court directive to allow the film’s release without further hindrance.

The case has become a high-profile legal battle intertwining film certification, political sensitivity, and procedural fairness. The next hearing in the Madras High Court over the certification process is scheduled for January 21, 2026. The film’s producers hope for a resolution before then to secure a release date soon after, although discussions suggest that if elections are announced, the Model Code of Conduct could further influence the timing.