‘Jana Nayagan’ censor row: Madras High Court sets aside single judge’s order that favoured actor Vijay’s film
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 27, 2026) allowed a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside a single judge’s January 9, 2026, order, which had directed the board to issue U/A 16+ certification for actor Vijay’s much-awaited final movie Jana Nayagan.
The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the single judge ought not to have passed such orders without affording proper opportunity to the CBFC to file a counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by the production house KVN Productions LLP.
The Bench also held that the writ petition was not maintainable at all, as it had sought a mandamus seeking a direction to the CBFC to issue the certificate, instead of seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the CBFC chairman on January 6, 2026, referring the movie to a nine-member revising committee.
yagan | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 27, 2026) allowed a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and set aside a single judge’s January 9, 2026, order, which had directed the board to issue U/A 16+ certification for actor Vijay’s much-awaited final movie Jana Nayagan.
The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the single judge ought not to have passed such orders without affording proper opportunity to the CBFC to file a counter affidavit to a writ petition filed by the production house KVN Productions LLP.
The Bench also held that the writ petition was not maintainable at all, as it had sought a mandamus seeking a direction to the CBFC to issue the certificate, instead of seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the CBFC chairman on January 6, 2026, referring the movie to a nine-member revising committee.
However, instead of dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench granted an opportunity to the production firm to amend its prayer and directed the Registry to restore the writ petition and list it for fresh hearing before the single judge if the production house chooses to utilise the opportunity granted by the Bench.
