Jana Nayagan producer to withdraw writ petition from Madras High Court

The producer of actor Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan has given a letter to the Madras High Court Registry for withdrawing a writ petition filed against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) since the production house had now agreed for a reference to the revising committee.

According to sources, the writ petition would be listed under the caption ‘For Withdrawal’ before Justice P.T. Asha on Tuesday (February 10, 2026) since Vijayan Subramanian, the counsel-on-record for KVN Productions LLP, has expressed his client’s disinterest in pursuing the litigation.

Originally slated to be released on January 9, 2026, Jana Nayagan had been watched by the CBFC’s five-member examination committee on December 19, 2025, and the production house claimed to have received a communication on December 22, 2025, stating that the board had come to the conclusion that the film was suitable for U/A 16+ certificate if certain excisions were carried out.

KVN had accepted the recommendation instead of appealing to the nine-member revising committee for a ‘U’ certificate and carried out all the suggested excisions. The edited movie was resubmitted to the board on December 24, 2025. However, in the meantime, one of the members of the monitoring committee sent a complaint to the CBFC Chairman Prasoon Joshi in Mumbai.

The complaint read: “Dear Sir, I came to know that Tamil film Jana Nayagan which is going to be released across India has been approved by the Examination Committee at Chennai without following due procedure. The film has shown visuals and dialogues in which foreign powers creating religious conflict at large scale in India which may disturb religious harmony of this great country.”

It went on to state: “There are many Army related references in the film but no defence expert has been included in the Examining Committee to address these issues. There are procedural lapses during examination of the film which is gross violation of the Cinematograph Act and Rules. I am an APM (Advisory Panel Member) member and I have watched the film on December 19, 2025 but my objections were not considered during examination of the film. So, we humbly request you to intervene in the procedure and direct the competent authority to re-examine the film.”

After the receipt of this complaint, the CBFC on December 29, 2025, instructed its Regional Office in Chennai to put the certification process of Jana Nayagan on hold and on January 5, 2026, the production house was informed that the chairman had decided to refer the movie to the revising committee. The chairman’s decision was uploaded on the e-cinepramaan portal on January 6.

Hours before the decision was uploaded on the portal, KVN Productions rushed to the Madras High Court with a writ petition seeking a direction to CBFC to issue U/A 16+ certificate within 24 hours and obtained a lunch motion for an urgent hearing of its case on the same day afternoon.

Justice P.T. Asha heard the matter and directed CBFC to produce all relevant records related to the certification of Jana Nayagan on January 7. After perusing the records and hearing the arguments advanced by Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan for the CBFC and senior counsel Satish Parasaran, assited by advocate Vijayan Subramanian, for the producer, the judge reserved her orders on January 7.

She allowed the writ petition on January 9 and directed the CBFC to issue the U/A 16+ certificate forthwith. Within a few hours on the same day, the board moved an urgent writ appeal before the first Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court and obtained an interim stay of the single judge’s order.

Though the production house went on appeal, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the interim order. Thereafter, the writ appeal was taken up for final hearing and argued at length before the first Division Bench of the Madras High Court on January 20 when the judges reserved their orders. The Bench delivered its judgment on January 27, setting aside the single judge’s order on the ground that she had not granted an opportunity to the CBFC to file its counter affidavit.

The Division Bench remanded the matter back to the single judge for a fresh hearing and granted liberty to the production house to amend its prayer by challenging the decision taken by the CBFC chairman on January 6. However, the production house had neither filed a petition in the High Court to amend its prayer nor approached the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench’s order.

Instead, it had now decided to approach the CBFC’s revising committee and withdraw its writ petition which had been revived and remanded to the single judge for a fresh hearing by the first Division Bench.