Madras HC sends Jana Nayagan-CBFC case back to single judge
The Madras High Court has delivered a significant verdict in the ongoing case between the makers of Thalapathy Vijay’s upcoming film, Jana Nayagan, and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). In a recent development, the division bench of the Madras High Court has set aside a single judge’s order directing the CBFC to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to the film. Instead, the matter has been sent back to the single judge for fresh consideration, allowing the makers to amend their plea and challenge the CBFC chairperson’s order.
This development comes as a significant setback for the film’s makers, who had been seeking a U/A 16+ certificate for Jana Nayagan. The CBFC had earlier granted a U/A certificate to the film, but the makers were not satisfied with the certification and had approached the court seeking a revision. The single judge had initially directed the CBFC to grant a U/A 16+ certificate to the film, but this order has now been set aside by the division bench.
The division bench’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration is a significant one. The court has asked the single judge to hear the case expeditiously, allowing the makers to amend their plea and challenge the CBFC chairperson’s order. This means that the film’s certification is still pending, and the makers will have to wait for a fresh decision from the single judge.
The case has been widely followed in the film industry, with many seeing it as a test of the CBFC’s authority to certify films. The CBFC has been under fire in recent years for its strict certification policies, with many filmmakers alleging that the board is overly cautious and restrictive in its approach. The Jana Nayagan case has been seen as a significant challenge to the CBFC’s authority, and the court’s decision will be closely watched by the film industry.
The film, Jana Nayagan, is a highly anticipated one, starring Thalapathy Vijay in the lead role. The film’s makers had been seeking a U/A 16+ certificate, which would have allowed the film to be screened for a wider audience, including children above the age of 16. However, the CBFC had granted a U/A certificate, which would have restricted the film’s audience to a certain extent.
The court’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration is a significant one, and it remains to be seen how the case will unfold from here. The film’s makers will have to wait for a fresh decision from the single judge, and it is possible that the certification process could be delayed further.
In the meantime, the film industry will be watching the case closely, as it has significant implications for the certification process and the authority of the CBFC. The case has also raised questions about the role of the judiciary in the certification process, and whether the courts should intervene in the CBFC’s decisions.
As the case continues to unfold, it is clear that the Madras High Court’s decision will have significant implications for the film industry. The court’s decision to send the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration is a significant one, and it remains to be seen how the case will unfold from here.
The film’s makers will have to wait for a fresh decision from the single judge, and it is possible that the certification process could be delayed further. However, the court’s decision is a significant one, and it will be closely watched by the film industry. The case has raised significant questions about the certification process and the authority of the CBFC, and it remains to be seen how the case will unfold from here.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision to send the Jana Nayagan-CBFC case back to the single judge is a significant one. The case has raised significant questions about the certification process and the authority of the CBFC, and it remains to be seen how the case will unfold from here. The film industry will be watching the case closely, and the court’s decision will have significant implications for the certification process and the authority of the CBFC.
About the Author
