New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere in the ongoing certification dispute surrounding the Tamil blockbuster Jana Nayagan, starring actor-turned-politician Vijay. The apex court refused the plea filed by the film’s producers seeking a “UA 16+” certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), noting that the matter is already pending before a division bench of the Madras High Court.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that the Madras High Court division bench had already listed the case for hearing on January 20, leaving no occasion for the Supreme Court to step in at this stage. The court clarified that the producers were at liberty to raise all legal contentions before the high court during the scheduled hearing.

Urgency of Release and Commercial Stakes

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing KVN Productions LLP, stressed the urgency of the matter, highlighting that the film is a “perishable commodity” and that the producers had invested heavily in promotions and booking over 5,000 theatres ahead of its scheduled Pongal release on January 9. He pointed out that it is a long-standing industry practice to announce release dates before receiving CBFC certification.

While the bench acknowledged the commercial concerns, it was hesitant to bypass the Madras High Court’s process, emphasizing that the matter is actively listed for hearing before the division bench on January 20. The Supreme Court urged the high court to make an endeavor to decide the matter finally on that date.

Background: CBFC Referral and Single Judge Order

The trouble began on January 6 when the CBFC chairperson referred Jana Nayagan to the Revising Committee, despite the examining committee at the Chennai regional office having agreed to grant a “UA 16+” certificate, subject to minor edits. The producers challenged this referral in the Madras High Court.

Justice PT Asha, sitting as a single judge, quashed the chairperson’s referral order on January 9, directing the CBFC to issue certification immediately. Justice Asha ruled that the chairperson lacked jurisdiction to reopen the certification process after the examining committee had cleared the film. She also noted that the complaint triggering the review appeared to be an “afterthought” and warned that entertaining such objections at a late stage could lead to a “dangerous trend.”

Division Bench Stays Single Judge Order

Within hours of the single judge’s ruling, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan stayed the operation of Justice Asha’s order. The bench observed that the matter required more detailed consideration and questioned the producers’ decision to fix a release date without obtaining certification, asking if it created “artificial pressure” on the court.

The division bench also highlighted submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, who contended that neither the Centre nor the CBFC had been given sufficient time to respond. Mehta noted that the CBFC chairperson’s January 6 communication had been set aside without being specifically challenged, raising procedural concerns.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the brisk pace at which the single judge had disposed of the matter, noting that the ruling was delivered within a day and without adequate time for opposing parties to submit responses. The bench questioned why the CBFC or the Union government was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case.

The apex court emphasized that since the division bench of the Madras High Court is already seized of the matter, there was no necessity for Supreme Court intervention at this juncture. It also urged the high court to make all efforts to conclude the hearing and pass a final order on January 20.

Political Context and Public Attention

The film has attracted nationwide attention because it is projected as Vijay’s last cinematic venture before his full-time entry into electoral politics. Vijay recently launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The certification dispute has, therefore, acquired both commercial and political significance, further intensifying scrutiny of the CBFC’s actions and the timing of judicial proceedings.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene places the onus on the Madras High Court division bench to examine the case in detail, balancing the procedural propriety of the CBFC’s actions against the producers’ commercial stakes. The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on January 20, when the division bench is expected to consider the legal, procedural, and commercial aspects of the film certification dispute.

Until then, the release of Jana Nayagan remains on hold, prolonging uncertainty for both the producers and the audience eagerly anticipating Vijay’s final film before his political career.

This case underscores the procedural complexities in film certification, particularly when high-profile releases intersect with commercial investments and political considerations.