Back to square one for Jana Nayagan; experts slam hasty court move as CBFC wins appeal

In a setback for Vijay's Tamil film Jana Nayagan, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, led by the Chief Justice, on Tuesday (January 27) quashed an earlier single-judge order that had directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to issue a censor certificate without further review.

The ruling has plunged the film's release into uncertainty, with potential delays extending beyond the anticipated announcement of assembly election dates. The Chief Justice's bench criticized the single judge, Justice PT Asha, for issuing the order without granting adequate time to the CBFC to respond or seek clarification.

"Defaming religious symbols cannot be tolerated," the Chief Justice remarked sternly in the judgment, highlighting objections to certain content in the film. The bench not only set aside Justice Asha's directive but also granted the CBFC leave to appeal and remanded the case back to her for a fresh hearing from scratch.

This means the film must now undergo scrutiny by the CBFC's Revising Committee (RC), a process that industry insiders estimate could take over two weeks just to form the panel, followed by additional time for review.

Political undertones and certification controversy

Jana Nayagan, directed by H Vinoth, is described as a "heavy political" drama, with its trailer evoking themes of democracy, leadership, and societal critique. The film has generated a buzz for its apparent political undertones, especially given actor Vijay's political foray with his new party, Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK).

Also Read: Madras HC sets aside single-judge order granting censor nod to Jana Nayagan

The controversy began when the CBFC's Examining Committee initially viewed the film and reportedly gave a verbal nod, only for a member to later file objections outside the screening, alleging content that could offend religious sentiments and violate guidelines.

Producers rush to high court

The row underscores ongoing tensions between filmmakers and the CBFC, particularly for politically charged content. The film's producers approached the high court after the CBFC deferred certification, seeking an urgent order to release the movie. Justice Asha had ruled in their favour, mandating a certificate without sending the film to the RC, a move the Division Bench deemed premature and beyond the petitioner's original request.

Veteran journalist Tharasu Shyam blamed the production team for rushing to court. "This is a self-inflicted mess," Shyam said. "The CBFC rules are clear. They had cleared it with the Examining Committee (EC) and planned to send it to the RC. The team should have waited instead of hastening to the judiciary."

He noted that the CBFC's appeal was inevitable to avoid setting a precedent, "If unchallenged, every disputed film would cite this order. Now, they're back to square one, perhaps approaching a new single judge, as revisiting the old one might not be feasible."

Experts fault legal strategy

Shyam also lamented the dissolution of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) by the Narendra Modi government a few years ago, which previously offered a quicker, cinema-experienced resolution outside courts. "Without the tribunal, courts are the only recourse, and this makes the CBFC a potential weapon for the central government, much like the IT department or the CBI," he warned.

With elections possibly announced in the third week of February, Shyam predicted dire consequences for the film production team. "If the Model Code of Conduct kicks in, the film could be shelved until polls end, killing the initial hype and causing massive losses," he noted.

Echoing these concerns, Gnana Rajasekaran, a retired IAS officer and former CBFC official, told The Federal that the case has been reset "back to square one". Criticising the producers' strategy, he said, "Filing a writ directly without going to the RC was a mistake. The CBFC is a quasi-independent body; they should have accepted conditions, gone to RC, and challenged only if dissatisfied."

Rajasekaran, who has certified over a thousand films, pointed out the unusual pre-certification hype, "I've never seen a film announce release dates and start ticket bookings before certification. Courts don't appreciate such tatkal-style urgency; it's for expedited viewing, not guaranteed approval."

Election code may delay release

Drawing parallels to the recently released Sivakarthikeyan-starrer Parasakthi, Rajasekaran advised pragmatism. "They accepted cuts at RC and got certified practically. But with Jana Nayagan's overt political content, the team should have approached it sensitively. Over-sensationalising invites extra scrutiny," he said.

He highlighted shifts in CBFC composition: "Two decades ago, even political appointees were mature and trained. Now, they're more partisan and less prepared."

On procedural lapses, Rajasekaran questioned the court's acceptance of a CBFC member's post-screening objection, "If dissent existed, it should have been raised during viewing, not later. Legally, that's dubious."

He affirmed the CBFC chairperson's authority to escalate to RC, and noted the government's power to revoke certificates. For options ahead, he recommended, "Skip court for now, go to RC, implement cuts, get an order, and challenge it judicially if needed. Proving political bias or alliances in court is impossible without evidence."

Also Read: CBI to CBFC: Are the screws tightening on Vijay? | Talking Sense With Srini

A deterrence for filmmakers?

The ruling also addressed the single judge's overreach, "She granted relief beyond what was sought, like mandating release," Rajasekaran observed. With RC formation potentially taking 20 days and no timeline mandate, he dismissed pre-election release pleas, "No producer has the right to demand release before polls; it's unenforceable."

This verdict could deter filmmakers from bypassing CBFC processes, reinforcing the board's role amid accusations of bias. For Jana Nayagan, the team must decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court or comply with RC. If elections are notified, precedents like Vijayakanth's films, halted during poll codes and resumed post-elections, suggest a forced postponement.

"Vijay's status as TVK leader and a prominent political figure, combined with the film's heavy political messaging, could prompt the EC to impose a ban on its release once the MCC is enforced. He cited historical precedents involving films starring the late actor-politician Vijayakanth, where certain movies were halted from being screened in theatres after the MCC came into effect during election periods, only to be re-released once the polls concluded," he said.

The Jana Nayagan team has not yet responded, but sources indicate consultations are underway.