Jana Nayagan: SC to Hear Plea Challenging Madras HC Order
According to the cause list of the apex court, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih is likely to hear the matter
By : DC Correspondent
Update: 2026-01-14 10:07 GMT
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday a plea filed by the producer of Jana Nayagan, a Tamil film starring Vijay, challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed a single-judge direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant clearance to the film.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, is likely to hear the matter.
On January 9, the Madras High Court stayed a single-judge order that had directed the CBFC to immediately issue a censor certificate to the film. The producer, KVN Productions LLP, moved the apex court against the order passed by a division bench of the High Court, which put on hold the single bench’s directive to grant certification forthwith.
Jana Nayagan, which has been widely publicised as Vijay’s final film before his full-fledged entry into politics, was slated for a Pongal release on January 9. Vijay recently launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. However, the film ran into last-minute hurdles after the CBFC did not issue certification in time.
Earlier on January 9, a single-judge bench of Justice P.T. Asha had directed the CBFC to clear the film, setting aside the board’s decision to refer the matter to a review committee. Allowing the plea filed by KVN Productions, the judge held that once the board had decided to grant certification, the chairperson had no authority to refer the matter to a review committee.
Subsequently, a division bench comprising Chief Justice M.M. Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan granted an interim stay on the single judge’s order on an appeal filed by the CBFC. Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared through video conferencing, outlined the grounds for the appeal before the division bench.
In its order, the division bench noted that the petition had been filed on January 6 and that the CBFC had not been given sufficient opportunity to file its response. The court stayed the single judge’s verdict, issued notice to the producer, and posted the matter for further hearing on January 21.