Actor-turned-politician Vijay’s much-anticipated film Jana Nayagan, initially slated for release on January 9, 2026, has become the center of a heated political controversy in Tamil Nadu following a delay in obtaining certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Madras High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on Friday, as the film’s clearance issues have sparked intense speculation over political motivations, rivalries, and alliances.

Vijay, a dominant figure in Tamil cinema for decades, has transitioned into politics with his new party, Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). Supporters of the actor-politician allege that the CBFC’s refusal to issue a release certificate represents a deliberate attempt to hinder his political ascent. One close aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, drew parallels between Vijay’s current situation and the struggles faced by legendary actor-politician M. G. Ramachandran (MGR) in 1973, when his film Ulagam Sutrum Valiban faced obstacles after he was expelled from the DMK by then-leader Karunanidhi. “They are worried the film will amplify his public image and political influence,” the aide stated, emphasizing the perceived threat to established political parties.

Political analysts have weighed in on the potential implications of the delay. Ramu Manivannan, a political observer, suggested that the BJP could be attempting to position Vijay in a strategic alignment with the AIADMK, at least symbolically, to counter the DMK bloc. “The BJP may be looking for an erasable pact to leverage Vijay’s popularity during poster campaigns, creating cracks in the DMK’s voter base,” Manivannan remarked.

The DMK, however, has rejected any responsibility for the delay, noting that the CBFC operates under the BJP-led Union government. Minister K. N. Nehru emphasized, “What is the connection between this film and us when the Censor Board is under the Centre?” The party’s stance reflects a careful effort to distance itself from controversies surrounding Vijay’s film while highlighting the federal structure of regulatory oversight.

Historically, Vijay’s cinematic releases have occasionally intersected with political controversies. In 2013, his film Thalaivaa faced delays, which were perceived as politically motivated by supporters of the late AIADMK chief minister J. Jayalalithaa. Vijay publicly appealed for her intervention, and the film was eventually released two weeks later after minor censorship adjustments. K. N. Nehru noted the parallel, suggesting that Vijay could seek resolution through appropriate channels connected to the CBFC today, as he did in the past.

The controversy has also drawn comparisons with other actor-politicians, including Kamal Haasan, who faced multiple pre-release challenges for his films despite being aligned with the DMK. These historical precedents underscore how Tamil cinema and politics have long been intertwined, with popular actors navigating the dual pressures of artistic expression and political influence.

Adding another layer to the debate, state legislative assembly speaker M. Appavu refrained from taking a partisan stance but highlighted previous instances of TVK members seeking justice through official channels. He cited TVK’s Aadhav Arjuna requesting a CBI probe into the Karur stampede in the Supreme Court and noted that Vijay, despite challenging the DMK government through cinema dialogues, was never formally investigated or arrested. “This demonstrates that while controversies arise, legal recourse and procedural fairness have remained intact,” Appavu commented.

The DMK’s ally Congress has also criticized the perceived politicization of the CBFC. Congress MP S. Jothimani described the board’s actions as a “political weapon of the Modi government” and questioned the relevance of the institution in the current technological era. “Freedom of expression must be protected. The Censorship Board is outdated, and whether to accept or reject a film should ultimately lie with the people,” Jothimani stated. This criticism reflects broader concerns among opposition parties about central oversight and the potential for regulatory bodies to be leveraged for political objectives.

The BJP, meanwhile, has defended the CBFC’s actions and rebutted claims that the central government or Prime Minister Narendra Modi played a role in delaying Jana Nayagan. Tamilisai Soundararajan, a senior BJP leader, accused the Congress of misleading the public and drew historical parallels to the Emergency era, during which films were banned under Congress rule. “It has been clearly established in court that the central government has no involvement in granting censor certificates. Congress has a history of stifling freedom, and now they are crying over Jana Nayagan,” Soundararajan said.

As the Madras High Court prepares to hear the case, the controversy has amplified the intersection of cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu, a state where film stars have historically wielded immense political influence. Vijay’s TVK is seeking to consolidate his cinematic popularity into political capital, and supporters view any delay in the film’s release as a potential tactic to suppress his emerging political influence. Analysts suggest that the outcome of the court proceedings could set a precedent for how political sensitivities intersect with cinematic releases in the state.

The dispute has also fueled public debate, with fans of Vijay expressing frustration over the delay and highlighting the broader implications for freedom of artistic expression. Social media has been abuzz with commentary from cinephiles, political analysts, and journalists, reflecting the intensity of public interest in the case. The narrative around Jana Nayaganexemplifies the dual role of cinema in Tamil Nadu: as a source of entertainment and a platform for political messaging.

Observers note that the controversy could have implications for upcoming elections in Tamil Nadu, as parties attempt to navigate the delicate balance between popular culture and political strategy. Vijay’s supporters argue that the film could enhance his visibility and electoral appeal, while critics caution that the politicization of film certification could fuel broader debates about censorship and regulatory overreach.

In conclusion, the delay in the CBFC certification for Jana Nayagan has escalated into a multi-faceted political issue, with allegations of conspiracy, historical parallels, and partisan arguments shaping the discourse. As the Madras High Court considers the case, all eyes are on the interplay between cinema, law, and politics in Tamil Nadu, a state where the legacy of actor-politicians continues to influence public life and governance. Whether the film sees its release as scheduled or faces further hurdles, the controversy underscores the enduring power of cinema as a cultural and political force in the region.