The producer of the Tamil film ‘Jana Nayagan’ starring Actor Vijay, KVN Productions LLP, has filed a plea in the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to stay the film’s certification.
A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court had earlier approved the films’ certification by directing the censor board to grant a U/A 16+ certificate.
However, the decision was later overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court on the censor board’s appeal on 9 January.
The makers of the Vijay starrer have now moved the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench’s decision staying the films’ certification.
KVN Productions LLP has filed an appeal against the order passed by the division bench last Friday.
What is the Jana Nayagan controversy?
‘Jana Nayagan’ was set for a Pongal release on January 9, the day when its certification was withheld. The film was widely being seen as Vijay’s last film as a full fledged actor, before he ventures into politics through his recently-launched party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
The film however ran into a roadblock last minute after the Central Board of Film Certification did not issue certification in time.
The Madras High Court’s order came hours after Justice PT Asha directed the CBFC to give clearance to ‘Jana Nayagan’, setting aside the film board’s directive to refer the matter to a review committee.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and G Arul Murugan, granted an interim stay on the single-judge bench’s order, on an appeal filed by the CBFC before it.
The single-judge bench comprising Justice Asha had earlier allowed the plea of ​​KVN Productions seeking a direction to CBFC to issue a censor certificate. According to her ruling, once the board had decided to grant the certificate, the chairperson had no power to send the matter to the review committee.
The film board immediately went for an appeal against the order.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (who appeared through video conferencing) outlined the grounds for the appeal before the division bench.
The January 6 letter of CBFC, which was communicated to the producer of the film, informing him that the matter was referred to the revising committee, was not at all under challenge. But the single judge set aside the letter and gave the above direction.
In its order, the division bench said the petition was filed on January 6, and the CBFC was not granted sufficient opportunity to file its reply.
There shall be a stay, the bench added and ordered notice to the producer of the movie and posted the matter to January 21.
