Jana Nayagan Release Uncertain As Supreme Court Refuses To Intervene
There is still no clarity on the release of Vijay’s much-awaited film Jana Nayagan after the Supreme Court on Thursday reportedly refused to entertain the producers’ plea seeking immediate CBFC clearance.
The apex court asked the makers to follow the proper legal route and pursue the matter before the Madras High Court, which is now scheduled to hear the case on January 20.
The film, produced by KVN Productions LLP, was originally planned for a January 9 Pongal release but was delayed after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) failed to issue the censor certificate on time.
The producers moved the courts after the CBFC Chairperson referred the film to a Revising Committee, citing a complaint raised by a dissenting member of the examining committee.
Supreme Court To Decide Today On Euthanasia Plea Of Man In Coma For 13 Years
During the Supreme Court hearing, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the producers had not challenged the division bench order of the Madras High Court in the correct manner.
Justice Datta said the issue should be properly contested before the High Court, especially since the matter was already listed there.
The Supreme Court therefore declined to interfere at this stage and directed that the High Court hear and decide the case on January 20.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the producers, argued that the film had already been widely promoted and that theatres across the country were booked.
Why Vijay’s Jana Nayagan Missed Its Pongal Release: Inside The Censorship Controversy
He said continued delays would result in heavy losses and that audiences would not wait indefinitely. However, the court maintained that due process had to be followed and that the CBFC must be given an opportunity to respond.
Earlier, a single judge of the Madras High Court had directed the CBFC to grant certification, stating that referring the film to a revising committee after clearance was not justified.
However, the CBFC challenged this order, and a division bench stayed the clearance, leading to the current situation.
(With inputs from agencies)
