News
Revealed in Madras High Court Order: Controversial Scenes in Vijay’s Jana Nayagan That Sparked CBFC Complaint — National Flag, Army References, Foreign Powers Stirring Religious Conflict
On Friday, January 9, the Madras High Court ruled in favor of the makers of Jana Nayagan, Vijay’s latest film, directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant it a U/A 16+ certificate. However, the CBFC immediately challenged the decision, seeking a fresh review. Consequently, the court stayed its earlier order, noting that the producers seemed to have created undue urgency around the film’s release, possibly pressuring the court, as reported by Live Law. The case is now set for hearing again on January 21, casting doubt on whether the highly awaited film will hit theaters this month.
As per Bollywood Hungama, the certification timeline is: the producer applied on December 18, 2025, and the film was screened for the Examining Committee on December 19. The committee unanimously recommended a U/A 16+ rating, subject to certain modifications. The makers complied with the required cuts and submitted Form IX by December 24, with verification confirming the excisions.
The twist came on January 5, when the CBFC informed the producers that the ‘competent authority’ had referred the film to a Revising Committee after a complaint citing issues of religious sensitivity and portrayal of the armed forces. The complaint, presented in court, alleged that the film’s visuals and dialogues suggested foreign powers inciting widespread religious conflict in India, potentially disturbing religious harmony. It also raised concerns about multiple Army references and pointed out that no defense expert was included in the Examining Committee, despite the military content.
Another contested element was scenes involving the National Flag, which the court noted had already been cut during the initial review. Also, the court observed that the complainant was himself a member of the Examining Committee and that many of his objections had already been addressed through cuts. The judge described the complaint as a “motivated afterthought,” cautioning that such reversals undermine the credibility of the CBFC process.
The court ruled that once the Board accepted the Examining Committee’s recommendation on December 22, the Chairperson no longer had jurisdiction to refer the film to a Revising Committee. Therefore, the referral decision made on January 6 was deemed invalid.
