Supreme Court refuses to entertain Jana Nayagan producer, who says he is ‘ruined’

The Supreme Court connected Thursday (January 15, 2026) refused to entertain a petition filed by the accumulation location of Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan against an order of enactment passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court implicit the certification of the film.

A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the “blistering pace” astatine which the Single Judge directed the issuance of the censor certificate connected January 9. The Bench said the shaper had not adjacent challenged the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman’s January 6 bid to nonstop the movie earlier a revising committee.

Senior advocator Mukul Rohatgi, for KVN, said his lawsuit was “ruined”.

“But wherefore bash you accidental that?” Justice Datta asked the elder counsel.

Mr. Rohatgi said films and the publicity generated astir them were “perishable commodities”.

“If it [film] is delayed, radical suffer interest. It stops having immoderate value. I person mislaid everything,” Mr. Rohatgi lamented.

The Court asked Mr. Rohatgi to rise his arguments earlier the Madras High Court Division Bench. It asked the High Court Bench to determine the pending petition earlier it connected January 20.

The two-judge Bench of the High Court had stayed the Single Judge bid to contented an U/A 16+ certificate to the film, simply hours aft it was passed connected January 9.

Editorial | Cuts and ratings: On the CBFC, Parasakthi and Jana Nayagan

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the CBFC and its Regional Officer earlier the Supreme Court.

The CBFC had countered that 1 of the 5 members of the examining committee had sent a ailment to the CBFC Chairman stating that his objections were not considered decently earlier making the recommendation.

It had argued that the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules of 2024 empowered the Chairman to notation a movie to the revising committee if helium did not hold with the proposal of the examining panel. The Board had argued that the judicial reappraisal connected the merits of issuance of censor certificates was limited.