Uncategorized

TH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P. No. of 2026 M/s. KVN PRODUCTIONS LLP, Represented by its AuthorizedSignatory, Mr. Venkata Narayana Konanki at Door No 9, Ranjit Road, Kotturpuram, Adayar, K.B. Dasan Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600020 … Petitioner VS 1. Central Board of Film Certification, Films Division Complex, Phase – I Building, 9th Floor, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 026 2. The Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification

by Sekar Reporter · Published January 6, 2026 · Updated January 6, 2026

IN TH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2026

M/s. KVN PRODUCTIONS LLP,
Represented by its AuthorizedSignatory,
Mr. Venkata Narayana Konanki
at Door No 9, Ranjit Road,
Kotturpuram, Adayar,
K.B. Dasan Road, Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600020 … Petitioner

1. Central Board of Film Certification,
Films Division Complex, Phase – I Building,
9th Floor, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg,
Mumbai – 400 026

2. The Regional Officer,
Central Board of Film Certification,
No. 35, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006 … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

I, Mr. Venkata Narayana Konanki, S/o. K.Venkatiah, aged about 46 years, at Door No 9, Ranjit Road, Kotturpuram, Adayar, K.B. Dasan Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600020, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the authorised signatory of the Petitioner LLP and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit. The averments made herein are true to my knowledge, belief and information.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioner is engaged in the business of production and distribution of cinematograph films. It is submitted that the Petitioner is the producer of the film named “JANA NAYAGAN”. The lead cast of the movie titled “JANA NAYAGAN” is Actor Vijay, Prakash Raj and other leading artists from the South Indian Film Industry. The music score for the movie is composed by Anirudh and film is directed by H. Vinoth. It is very clear from the above submission that the movie “JANA NAYAGAN” produced by the Petitioner and the movie is one of most awaited movies of the year 2026.

3. It is submitted that the pre-production work of the movie was started in the month of May 2024. The Pooja ceremony for the film “JANA NAYAGAN” was performed on 04/10/2024. The principal shooting of the movie was started during 05.10.2024 and at various schedules, the entire movie was shot at different locations and the post production work was completed on 15.12.2025. The audio launch of the movie “JANA NAYAGAN” occurred 27.12.2025. The movie is “JANA NAYAGAN” is scheduled to be released on 09.01.2026.

4. It is submitted that the Film “JANA NAYAGAN” has gone viral in social media platforms including, Face book, WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram and X (Twitter). The movie “JANA NAYAGAN” is continuously being celebrated by general public and further the public very eagerly waiting for the release of the film “JANA NAYAGAN”.

5. It is submitted that the Petitioner had filed the application for censor certification on 18.12.2025, which was duly acknowledged by the 2nd Respondent office on 19.12.2025 bearing Acknowledgement No. 01031912202500014, after complying with all statutory requirements, including payment of fees and submission of documents.

6. It is submitted that subsequently, the Petitioner received an email communication dated 22.12.2025 from the Office of Second Respondent, wherein it was expressly stated that the decision of the Examining Committee was arrived at after due consideration of the oral and written submissions advanced by Petitioner’s authorised representative during the personal hearing afforded to the Petitioner.

7. It is submitted that the said communication further recorded that, upon such consideration, the Examining Committee recommended the grant of certification to the film under the category ‘UA 16+’, subject to the compliance of certain excisions and/or modifications as specified therein, along with detailed reasons forming part of the said recommendation.

8. It is submitted that the reasons assigned for recommending the grant of ‘UA 16+’ certification, as communicated by the second Respondent, specifically record that the film contains a brief portrayal religious sentiments, frequent and sustained fight sequences involving shooting, blasts and stabbing, certain gory visual depictions, as well as scenes of hanging and immolation, which, in the considered opinion of the Examining Committee, may not be suitable for children below the age of 16 years.

9. It is submitted that the said reasons have been clearly and unequivocally recorded in accordance with law and that, upon the Petitioner duly carrying out and complying with the modifications directed by the second Respondent, the second Respondent is statutorily bound to grant the censor certificate under the ‘UA 16+’ category, without any further delay or insistence to the Petitioner.

10. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Examining Committee, the Petitioner strictly complied with and carried out all modifications as specifically directed by the second Respondent and resubmitted the revised version of the film on 24.12.2025. The suggested cuts were expressly marked for re-submission and the Petitioner adhered to the same in total without any deviation. Thereafter, the second Respondent verified the modifications on 29.12.2025 and informed the Petitioner that the film would be granted ‘UA 16+’ certification. It is submitted that despite such prompt and complete compliance by the Petitioner, the acceptance and confirmation of the modifications by the second Respondent took nearly ten days, even though no further objections or requirements were raised.

11. It is submitted that, while proceeding with the final stage of the certification process, the Petitioner encountered a technical limitation in the CBFC online portal, wherein there was no provision to upload the Audio Description and Closed Caption details at the final script uploading stage. Accordingly, the Petitioner immediately requested the 2nd Respondent office to enable the said option to allow us to complete the process.

12. It is submitted that despite our email dated 31.12.2025 and reminder dated 01.01.2026, the Petitioner did not receive any substantive response. It is submitted that on 02.01.2026, the Petitioner received an acknowledgement of our query with Reference No. T000340448. Upon further reminder sent on 05.01.2026, the Second respondent requested us to furnish the acknowledgement number, which was duly provided by the Petitioner on the very same day. However, till date, the censor certificate has not been issued.

13. To the shock and surprise, the Petitioner received an email dated 05.01.2026 from the 2nd Respondent stating that the competent authority has decided to refer our film Jana Nayagan to a Revising committee under rule 24 of the cinematograph Certification rules due to complaint received on the content (hurting religious sensibilities and portrayal of armed forces). The 2nd Respondent further stated the details on the revising committee will be communicated in due course.

14. It is submitted that the grounds cited for such reference are wholly untenable, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the very same reasons were already addressed and expressly recorded in the earlier communication dated 22.12.2025, pursuant to which the Examining Committee had recommended the grant of ‘UA 16+’ certification subject to specified excisions and modifications.

15. The Petitioner has, in strict and complete compliance with the directions of the second Respondent, carried out all the mandated modifications, which were duly verified and accepted by the 1st Respondent, and the Petitioner was accordingly informed that the film would be granted certification. In such circumstances, the subsequent referral of the film to a Revising Committee on identical objections, after compliance and acceptance of the modifications, does not arise at all and the same is arbitrary, contrary to the statutory law.

16. It is respectfully submitted that, after having recommended the grant of ‘UA 16+’ certification to the film ‘Jana Nayagan’ and after the Petitioner had complied with all excisions and modifications as directed, the second Respondent, by email dated 05.01.2026, unexpectedly communicated that the film was being referred to a Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules on the basis of an alleged complaint. The said communication does not disclose the identity of the complainant, the nature or particulars of the complaint, or any supporting material. The reopening of the certification process on undisclosed and vague grounds, after recommendation of certification, is arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

17. It is respectfully submitted that, as on date, the film ‘Jana nayagan’ has not been exhibited, screened, or made available for viewing to the general public in any manner whatsoever and has been viewed only by the members of the production team and the statutory authorities of the Central Board of Film Certification. In such circumstances, the very claim of receipt of a complaint regarding the content of the film is suspicious and wholly inexplicable.

18. The reliance placed by the second Respondent on such a vague and undisclosed ‘complaint’ is therefore impermissible in law, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory law governing film certification. The second Respondent, having already examined the film through the Examining Committee and recommended certification subject to modifications duly complied with by the Petitioner, was legally bound to ignore any such alleged and unverifiable complaint and proceed with the grant of the censor certificate, instead of reopening the concluded certification process.

19. It is submitted that entertaining such anonymous, undisclosed, and unverifiable complaints, particularly at a stage when the film has not been viewed by the public and the certification process has otherwise reached finality, would set a dangerous precedent and open the floodgates for frivolous and motivated objections to be raised in respect of every film prior to certification. If such a course is permitted, the second Respondent would be compelled to act upon alleged complaints in every case, rendering the statutory certification process uncertain, arbitrary, and susceptible to abuse, which is wholly impermissible in law.

20. It is respectfully submitted that the second Respondent, Central Board of Film Certification is the sole statutory authority vested with the power to examine and certify films under the Cinematograph Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Entertaining anonymous or undisclosed complaints at the pre-certification stage would, in effect, elevate such complainants to the position of a ‘super censor board’.

21. The Apex Court has consistently held that no individual or group can be permitted to assume the role of a super censor or dictate the certification process once the statutory authority has applied its mind. Any deviation from this settled position of law would render the certification process arbitrary, undermine the authority of the second Respondent itself, and result in an impermissible abdication of its statutory functions.

22. It is submitted that Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules cannot be invoked on the basis of an alleged complaint after the Examining Committee, acting through the second Respondent, has already applied its mind and recommended the grant of certification to the film. The statutory scheme does not contemplate reopening a concluded recommendation on the strength of undisclosed or subsequent complaints, particularly after the Petitioner has complied with all directed excisions and modifications. It is submitted that invocation of Rule 24 in such circumstances is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to the object and scheme of the Rules and amounts to an impermissible review of a reasoned recommendation already made by the second Respondent.

23. is respectfully submitted that the communication dated 05.01.2026 issued by the Second Respondent, whereby the film was referred to the Revising Committee under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, is a non-speaking and cryptic order, bereft of any reasons whatsoever. The said communication merely states that the film is referred to Revising Committee, without disclosing any new grounds, objections, reasons, or specific concerns arising out of the examination by the Examining Committee which necessitated such reference.

24. It is submitted that Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, though conferring discretion on the Chairperson to refer a film to the Revising Committee, does not contemplate or authorise arbitrary exercise of power without recording reasons. It is submitted that the power under Rule 24 is an exceptional power, which directly impacts the statutory right of the Petitioner to timely certification. It is submitted that such power, therefore, must be exercised reasonably, transparently and with recorded reasons, especially when the consequences are grave and time-sensitive.

25. It is further submitted that the absence of reasons in the impugned communication renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The Petitioner has been completely deprived of an opportunity to understand the basis on which the film was found fit to be escalated to the Revising Committee, thereby disabling the Petitioner from effectively addressing or responding to any alleged objection and the same constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

26. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner is suffering severe financial and mental agony due to the unwarranted delay and arbitrary actions of the second Respondent. The Petitioner has already invested approximately ₹500 crores in the production, marketing, and distribution of the film ‘Jana nayagan’, and the delay in grant of certification is causing substantial financial impact.

27. It is submitted that the film is scheduled for release on over 5,000 screens all over the world, all of which are presently blocked pending certification, resulting in immediate and irrecoverable impact of revenue. In addition to the financial impact, such delay is causing irreparable damage to the Petitioner’s reputation and goodwill in the film industry. The cumulative effect of these factors namely financial loss, blocked screens worldwide, mental stress and reputational harm, underscores the urgency of immediate intervention and the grant of certification without further obstruction.

28. It is respectfully submitted that the film ‘Jana nayagan’ has already undergone and obtained censor certification in multiple countries worldwide. If the certification for release in India is unreasonably withheld or delayed, it will inevitably lead to widespread piracy of the film, resulting in massive financial losses to the Petitioner. The delay not only frustrates the lawful commercial exploitation of the film in India but also undermines the significant investment already made in production, promotion, and distribution, and causes irreparable damage to the Petitioner’s reputation and business goodwill.

29. It is further submitted that the film titled ‘JANA NAYAGAN’ is scheduled for theatrical release on 09.01.2026, and in view of the imminent release date, there exists extreme urgency in obtaining the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate for the Tamil and dubbed version of the film in many languages.

30. It is submitted that the issuance of the said certificate is a statutory prerequisite for the Petitioner to proceed with applications under Rule 33 of the applicable Rules, as well as to initiate and complete the process of obtaining CBFC certification for the dubbed versions of the film in Telugu, Malayalam, Hindi, and Kannada.

31. It is submitted that any delay in the grant of the Tamil certification would have a cascading and irreparable impact on the Petitioner’s ability to secure multi-language certifications and effect a simultaneous pan-India release, thereby causing substantial commercial impact and prejudice to the Petitioner, apart from frustrating the scheduled release of the film.

32. It is submitted that the arbitrary reference to the First Respondent Revising Committee, without assigning new objections and based on a complaint and without even fixing a date for examination, has resulted in an indefinite and unjustified delay, effectively stalling the release of the film scheduled on 09.01.2026, and causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner. Such administrative inaction and non-speaking exercise of power is contrary to the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act and Rules and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

33. It is submitted that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Respondents if a direction is issued to grant censor certificate of the film. al mandate. It is submitted that the Petitioner has no other efficacious or alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Second Respondent to grant censor certificate under ‘UA 16+’ category under the name of the Petitioner for the film Jana Nayagan, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For the reasons, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the Respondents to grant Censor Certificate in the name of the Petitioner being the producer of the film “JANA NAYAGAN” under UA 16+ category, as per the 2nd Respondent communication dated 22.12.2025, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on | BEFORE ME,
this the 6th day of January, 2026 |
and signed his name in my presence |

ADVOCATE, CHENNAI