The Madras High Court on Friday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to “forthwith” grant a U/A certificate to the upcoming Tamil film Jana Nayagan starring Thalapathy Vijay.

The film’s release, scheduled for January 9, was postponed following delay in CBFC clearance.

Pronouncing the order, Justice P.T. Asha said, “After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant’s grievance appears to be an after thought.” The court cautioned that entertaining such complaints would give rise to a “dangerous trend”.

Holding that the CBFC’s action was unsustainable, the court said that “once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow”.

As per Live Law, the order further said, “Exercise of power by the chairperson is without jurisdiction since the power of chairperson to send for review stood abdicated after he, on behalf of committee informed that UA certificate would be granted subject to incisions.”

The high vourt observed that since the order was without jurisdiction, it could modify the relief by invoking its inherent powers. It accordingly set aside the letter issued by the CBFC chairperson referring the film to the Revising Committee, allowed the petition, and directed the CBFC to issue a U/A certificate to the film forthwith.

The film’s producer, KVN Productions, represented by Venkata K Narayana, submitted that on December 22, a communication was received from the CBFC Regional Office stating that the Examining Committee had recommended granting a “UA” certificate, subject to compliance with certain excisions and modifications.

It was submitted that the modifications were carried out and the film was resubmitted, following which the Regional Office informed on December 29 that the film would be given a UA certificate.

However, on January 5, the producer received an email from the CBFC Regional Office stating that the competent authority had decided to refer the film to the Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, based on the complaint.

The court had reserved orders on Wednesday after hearing advocate Satish Parasaran for the production house and Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan for the CBFC.

KVN Productions argued that reopening the certification process after the certificate had already been granted was against law. On the other hand, the CBFC contended that the chairperson was not bound by the decision of the Examining Committee and could order a review even after the committee had viewed the film.

CBFC argued that under Rule 23(14) of the Cinematograph Certification Rules, the chairperson could differ from the committee’s opinion either suo motu or based on information received, including a complaint.

It was argued that even if one committee member raised objections after examination, the chairperson could consider those objections and refer the film to the Revising Committee. In the present case, it was contended that one committee member had sent a complaint stating that his objections were not considered.

Countering this, the production house submitted that a committee member “could not convert themselves into a complainant”. It was argued that the law recognised a distinction between recommendations and complaints and that once a majority decision was taken by the Examining Committee, the opinion of one member could not invalidate it.