In a sharp rebuke to last-minute administrative reversals, the Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately issue a UA 16+ certificate to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan. The court held that once the CBFC had accepted the Examining Committee’s recommendation and the producer complied with all cuts, the Board had no authority to reopen the process based on a later complaint.
The judgment was delivered by Justice P. T. Asha in a writ petition filed just days before the film’s scheduled release.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by M/s KVN Productions LLP, producer of Jana Nayagan, against the Central Board of Film Certification and its Chennai regional office.
According to the producer, the film was examined by the CBFC’s Examining Committee in December 2025. After viewing the film, the committee unanimously recommended a UA 16+ certificate, subject to specific excisions. The CBFC formally communicated this decision on December 22, 2025.
The producers carried out every cut suggested, resubmitted the revised version, and were informed that the modifications had been verified. Certification, it appeared, was only a procedural step away.
Sudden Referral to Revising Committee
The situation changed abruptly on January 5, 2026, when the CBFC informed the producer that the film was being referred to a Revising Committee under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The referral was based on a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and improperly portrayed the armed forces.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Justice Yashwant Varma’s Plea Against Parliamentary Probe Panel
Crucially, this complaint came from a member of the same Examining Committee who had earlier signed off on the UA 16+ recommendation.
The producer approached the High Court, arguing that the CBFC had no power to revisit a decision that had already been taken and acted upon.
Court’s Observations
After examining the CBFC’s original records, Justice Asha noted that the Examining Committee’s recommendation was unanimous and had been formally accepted by the Board.
“The moment the Board accepted the recommendation and communicated it to the producer, the process moved to the final certification stage,” the court observed.
Read also:- 23 Years on Hold: Supreme Court Questions High Court Delay in Dowry Death Trial, Seeks Full Records
The judge found that the complaint relied upon by the CBFC was made after the decision had already been communicated. Even more damaging, the complainant had raised the very same objections earlier which were resolved through the cuts already made.
The court was particularly critical of the complainant’s change of stance. Such a volte-face, it warned, could erode the credibility of the certification process itself.
“If members of an Examining Committee are allowed to resile from their signed recommendations, the sanctity of the entire certification mechanism would be at risk,” the bench noted.
Limits on CBFC’s Powers
Interpreting the 2024 Certification Rules, the court clarified that the CBFC Chairperson can refer a film to a Revising Committee only before the Board accepts the Examining Committee’s recommendation.
Read also:- Private Client or State Duty? Allahabad High Court Flags Role of Govt Advocate in Ongoing Case
Once that acceptance happens and is communicated to the producer, the Chairperson’s power to invoke a review “comes to an end,” the court held.
The attempt to “supersede” the earlier approval through a later upload on the CBFC portal was therefore declared without legal authority.
Final Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Madras High Court set aside the CBFC’s decision to refer Jana Nayagan to a Revising Committee and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Chennai Regional Officer to grant the UA 16+ certificate immediately.
The court ordered that certification be issued strictly in line with the earlier approval and the cuts already verified, bringing the dispute to a close without imposing any costs.
Case Details:- KVN Productions LLP vs Central Board of Film Certification
Case No.:- W.P. No. 380 of 2026 (with W.M.P. No. 445 of 2026)
