The delay in censor clearance for Jana Nayagan, Vijay’s final film before his political transition, has turned into a closely watched legal and industry issue. Below is a chronological breakdown of how events unfolded and why the release has been affected.

December 18, 2025

KVN Productions submitted Jana Nayagan to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Tatkal procedure, well in advance of its planned January 9 release.

December 19, 2025

The CBFC regional office acknowledged receipt of the application.

December 22, 2025

The Examining Committee viewed the film and recommended a UA certificate, subject to certain cuts and modifications. These included concerns related to brief depictions of religious sentiments, prolonged action sequences involving gunfire, explosions and stabbing, as well as a few gory visuals considered unsuitable for children below 16. Such observations are common for large-scale action films.

December 24, 2025

The producers implemented all suggested changes and resubmitted the revised version of the film.

December 29, 2025

Following verification, the regional CBFC office reportedly informed the makers that the film would be issued a UA certificate. At this stage, the producers believed the certification process was complete.

Early January 2026

Despite the communication, the censor certificate was not issued. This delay began to affect advance bookings, theatre allocations and coordinated release plans across India and overseas markets.

January 5, 2026

Just four days before the scheduled release, the producers received an email from the CBFC stating that the “competent authority” had decided to refer the film to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules. The referral was based on a complaint alleging that the film hurt religious sentiments and portrayed the armed forces objectionably.

This sudden reopening of the process, after compliance and apparent clearance, became the core point of dispute.

Legal challenge before the Madras High Court

KVN Studios approached the Madras High Court, arguing that the complaint was vague and undisclosed, making it impossible to assess its credibility. The producers pointed out that the film had not been publicly screened and that only CBFC members had access to it.

They further contended that once the Examining Committee had recommended certification and the makers had complied with all cuts, Rule 24 should not be invoked. Reopening the process at such a late stage, they argued, violated principles of procedural fairness and legal certainty.

Court proceedings

During the hearing, the Madras High Court directed the CBFC to place on record the complaint that led to the referral. The court observed that the objections raised appeared to repeat issues already addressed through cuts and muting.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan told the court that under the Cinematograph Rules, the CBFC Chairperson is not bound by the Examining Committee’s recommendation and has the authority to order a review until a certificate is formally issued. He added that the film would now have to be reviewed by a fresh committee that was not part of the original examination.

The court also questioned why the producers were earlier informed that certification would be granted, only for the process to be reopened later. The CBFC maintained that the makers were informed of the review decision on January 5.

Industry and financial concerns

KVN Studios submitted that over Rs 500 crore had been invested in the project and highlighted the severe financial implications of any delay. The producers stated that 27 cuts had already been made in compliance with CBFC directions and questioned how the opinion of a single complaint could override the collective recommendation of the examining committee.

They also stressed that the January 9 release date had been publicly announced and widely marketed, making last-minute uncertainty extremely disruptive.

Additional context and speculation

Adding to the discussion, Jana Nayagan has reportedly already received a “15” rating from the British Board of Film Classification. 

Current status

The Madras High Court has reserved its order, with a decision expected on January 9 morning. The CBFC has sought four weeks’ time for the revising process, while the industry continues to wait for clarity on whether Jana Nayagan will reach theatres as scheduled.

What began as a routine certification has now evolved into a broader test case on transparency, procedural fairness, and the scope of censorship powers in India’s film certification system.

Source : Times of India