Producer Venkat K Narayana of KVN Productions LLP on Monday, January 12, approached the Supreme Court seeking relief for the release of his film Jana Nayagan, starring actor-politician Vijay. The producer has challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court division bench that stayed a single-judge directive ordering the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a certificate for the film.
Jana Nayagan, billed as Vijay’s swansong before he transitions into full-time politics, was slated for a Pongal release on January 9. The release, however, was postponed after the CBFC declined to issue a certificate and instead referred the film for further scrutiny. On January 6, the Board sent the film to a Revising Committee, citing objections related to religious sentiments and the depiction of the armed forces.
Following this development, the producer approached the Madras High Court seeking directions to facilitate the film’s release as scheduled. On January 9, a single bench directed the CBFC to immediately issue the certificate.
Later the same day, the CBFC filed an urgent appeal before a division bench of the High Court, which stayed the single bench’s order and adjourned the matter to January 20. The division bench noted that the single judge had passed the order without granting the CBFC adequate opportunity to present its case.
In his petition before the High Court, the producer stated that the film was initially submitted for certification in December 2025 and that the CBFC had suggested certain modifications. After accepting these changes, a revised version of the film was submitted on December 24, 2025.
According to the producer, the CBFC’s Chennai regional office informed them on December 29, 2025, that the revised version would be certified. However, the final uploading process could not be completed due to technical issues on the CBFC portal, which were duly communicated to the Board.
On January 5, the producers received a communication stating that the CBFC Chairperson had decided to refer the film to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, following a complaint regarding the film’s content. The complaint was filed by a member of the Examining Committee that had earlier cleared the film. The Chairperson’s order was uploaded on January 6.
In its January 9 order, the single bench held that the Chairperson’s decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee after accepting the Examining Committee’s recommendation was unsustainable. The court also observed that the complaint filed by an Examining Committee member was untenable.
With the High Court’s interim stay continuing and the film remaining uncertified, the producer has now moved the Supreme Court seeking appropriate relief.