Chennai: The legal battle over the certification of actor-politician Vijay's highly anticipated political thriller, Jana Nayagan, intensified today at the Madras High Court. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan began hearing the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) appeal against a Single Judge’s order that had directed the immediate grant of a 'U/A' certificate to the film.

The hearing follows a dramatic turn of events earlier this month where a Single Judge set aside the CBFC's decision to send the film to a Revising Committee, terming it arbitrary. The Division Bench had subsequently stayed that order, leading the producers, KVN Productions, to briefly knock on the Supreme Court's doors before returning to the High Court for today’s scheduled final hearing.

The central friction point lies in the CBFC's procedural conduct. Representing the Board, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan argued that the initial communication to the producers regarding 14 suggested cuts was "only an intermediary decision" by the Examining Committee and not a final approval.

The ASG contended that the Board received a complaint shortly after the initial viewing, prompting the Regional Office to put the decision on hold and refer the film to a Revising Committee. He argued that the Single Judge erred by issuing a mandamus for certification without allowing the CBFC sufficient time to file a counter-affidavit explaining this shift.

"The decision taken after viewing the film regarding 14 cuts was only an intermediary decision. Not a final decision... From the Board, a communication is sent saying they have received a complaint. The Board asks the regional office to put the decision on hold."

Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for KVN Productions, has maintained that the CBFC’s sudden referral to a Revising Committee—after the producers had ostensibly agreed to the 14 cuts—was an afterthought triggered by external pressure. The producers argue that the process was being dragged out to delay the film's release, amounting to harassment.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Shrivastava questioned the timeline of events, specifically probing the origin of the order to hold the certification. The Bench noted the procedural abruptness where the initial process of cuts was superseded by a fresh referral to the Revising Committee.

The Single Judge had previously criticized the CBFC for suppressing the fact that the film was being sent to a Revising Committee merely based on a "complaint," without giving the producers a fair hearing.

For the Tamil film industry, Jana Nayagan is not just a blockbuster; it is a political statement given Vijay's entry into active politics. The case highlights the recurring friction between creative expression and regulatory oversight in India. If the Division Bench upholds the CBFC's power to "recall" decisions based on third-party complaints, it could set a precedent making film certification more vulnerable to external objections even after initial clearances.