He insisted that the board’s communication was merely an interim step and not a final order, and therefore the producers could not claim a right to certification. He also stated that documents and letters made by the CBFC were not uploaded on the portal, which went against the other rules.

Whether it's the rise of a new sensation or the seasoned journey of an industry veteran, the TOI Entertainment Desk is your front-row seat to the fascinating narratives that shape the entertainment landscape. No red carpet goes unrolled, no stage goes dark – our team spans the globe, bringing you the latest scoops and insider insights from Bollywood to Hollywood, and every entertainment hotspot in between.

He stated that the producers got the message on January 5 and the decision was loaded on the e-cinepraman website on January 6. as per him, this was a conclusive decision of the board, and once it was made, the board could not recall it or send it back to the producers for reconsideration without giving them a chance of being heard.

We don't just report; we tell tales of stardom and stories untold. Release dates and censor certifications are subject to the final verdict of the Madras High Court and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).Get the latest entertainment updates from the Times of India, along with the latest Hindi movies, upcoming Hindi movies in 2026 , and Telugu movies.”About the AuthorTOI Entertainment DeskThe TOI Entertainment Desk is a dynamic and dedicated team of journalists, working tirelessly to bring the pulse of the entertainment world straight to the readers of The Times of India.

The information provided is for entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Beyond the breaking news, we present a celebration of culture. The producers further claimed that any complaint was effectively rendered redundant because the 14 required cuts had already been made.Court reserves orders on key legal questionsAfter hearing both sides, the bench stated it needed to consider the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act and Rules, including whether the board had the power to send the film to a revising committee after issuing an initial certification.

The court also asked whether the producers were given adequate time to file a counter and whether the single judge’s decision was within the scope of the writ petition’s prayers. He maintained that the single judge’s order granting relief was beyond the scope of the prayers made in the writ petition, and therefore the decision should not have been set aside.

As the judges noted, the primary question is whether it could be disposed of in a single day, considering whether due process has now followed. The ASG also raised the procedural issue of lack of time to file a counter, submitting that a day or two could be considered sufficient.

Jana Nayagan Postponed After High Court Showdown—Censor Clash Explained Producers claim board cannot revoke a decision already takenSenior Advocate Satish Parasaran, representing the producers, countered that the CBFC had already decided to certify the film after the examining committee’s unanimous recommendation.

As per Livelaw, he explained that after the examining committee recommended 14 cuts, the matter was sent to the board, and a subsequent complaint led the board to place the decision on hold. The court also examined the role of the examining committee, the advisory panel, and the CBFC board, to determine who actually viewed the film and who had the authority to revise the decision.CBFC argues lack of opportunity and challenges the writ court’s decisionASG ARL Sundaresan, appearing for CBFC, argued that the producers were not entitled to immediate relief because the decision of January 5, sending the film for review, was not challenged in time.