Jana Nayagan Censor Row: Makers Cite Dhurandhar 2 in Madras High Court

The certification dispute surrounding Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay, took a significant turn on Tuesday as the film’s producers referenced Dhurandhar 2 during a hearing at the Madras High Court. The argument was made in response to the court’s concern over the announcement of Jana Nayagan’s release date before obtaining formal certification from the Central Board of Film Certification.

The division bench, led by the Chief Justice and another senior judge, questioned the practice of publicising release dates without a censor certificate in place. In response, the film’s producers contended that announcing release schedules ahead of certification is a long-established industry practice and not an exception.

During the proceedings, senior counsel appearing for the production house stated that several major films across industries routinely declare release dates while the certification process is ongoing. To support this claim, the makers pointed to Dhurandhar 2, which has already announced its theatrical release date despite not having completed all formal certification steps at the time of announcement.

The producers further informed the court that Jana Nayagan had already secured clearance for release in over 20 international markets. According to their submission, global approvals were granted based on the film’s content, and the domestic certification delay was creating uncertainty around distribution, promotions, and contractual obligations.

The court, however, raised questions about procedural fairness and timelines. It asked why the producers did not allow the CBFC adequate time to file a counter affidavit and why they proceeded to approach higher judicial forums without exhausting available remedies. The bench also sought clarification on why objections were not raised immediately after the CBFC communicated its decision to send the film for review by a revising committee.

Another major point of contention involved the CBFC’s direction to reinsert scenes that had already been deleted following the examining committee’s recommendations. The makers argued that they had complied with all mandated excisions and found it unreasonable to restore removed portions solely for re-evaluation. According to the producers, such a demand added unnecessary delays and financial strain to a project with an estimated investment running into hundreds of crores.

The production team also highlighted pressures from commercial partners, including the film’s official streaming platform, Prime Video, which reportedly sought clarity on the final release timeline due to contractual commitments.

The High Court reiterated its concern that interim directions affecting certification should not be issued without hearing all parties in full, warning that such practices could set an unhealthy precedent. It also recalled that an earlier order directing provisional certification had already been set aside, restoring the matter for detailed examination.

With arguments concluded, the Madras High Court has reserved its verdict. The outcome is expected to have wider implications for how film producers announce release dates and navigate certification timelines, especially for big-budget projects involving major stars and multi-platform releases.