The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered, “The Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. The decision of the Writ Court has to go…the appeal is allowed
Home / Court Updates / High Courts / Madras High Court Breaking| Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge’s Order Directing UA Certificate To Actor Vijay Movie ‘Jana Nayagan’ The Court has remanded the matter back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration. ByAastha Kaushik|27 Jan 2026 10:51 AM The Madras High Court, today, has set aside the Judgment passed by the Single Judge directing the grant of a ‘UA’ certificate to the actor Vijay-starrer Film Jana Nayagan in the appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court had reserved orders on January 20, 2026, after hearing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and KVN Productions LLP at length. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered, “The Single Judge ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. The decision of the Writ Court has to go…the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petitioner is given an opportunity to amend the Writ Petition.” Also Read – Roads Do Not Have A Religious Character: Madras High Court Directs Removal Of Christian Shrine Encroaching Public Road Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan appeared for CBFC, whereas Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran appeared for the Producer. The Court said that the Single Judge erred by adjudicating on the merits of the case without affording the CBFC a fair opportunity to be heard, particularly as the Chairperson’s order had not been formally challenged in the prayer. The Court ordered, “A complaint was placed before the Chairman, particularly with regard to the content of the film. It appears that the film had some dialogue regarding foreign powers creating religious conflict in India, which may disturb religious disharmony…” The Division Bench has remanded the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration, directing a de novo hearing on the merits after ensuring all procedural requirements are met. Also Read – Violation Of Privacy, Discrimination And Ill-treatment: Madras High Court Quashes Order Seeking Collection Of Sensitive Data Of Govt School Students Background Before the Single Bench, a writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the CBFC to grant a Censor Certificate in the name of the petitioner, being the producer of the film “Jana Nayagan” under the UA 16+ category, as per the CBFC’s communication within a period of 24 hours. The lead cast actors for the above film are Vijay, Prakash Raj and other leading artists from the South Indian Film Industry. On December 18, 2025, the Petitioner applied for certification for Jana Nayagan. Following a review, the Examining Committee recommended a UA 16+ certificate subject to specific cuts. The petitioner complied, and by December 29, the CBFC confirmed the modifications were verified, and the certificate would be issued. The process then stalled due to technical issues on the CBFC portal regarding audio descriptions. Also Read – Continued Detention Of Children Of Sri Lankan Citizens Booked In NIA Case Is Deprivation Of Their Right To Life: Kerala High Court Orders Issuance Of… Despite the petitioner’s repeated reminders, the board failed to issue the certificate. Instead, on January 5, 2026, the CBFC unexpectedly referred the film to a Revising Committee following an undisclosed complaint regarding religious sentiments and the armed forces. The petitioner moved the court, arguing that once the committee had approved the film and cuts were made, the board could not legally restart the review process. On Friday, January 9, the Single Bench had directed the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant a U/A certificate to the movie. On the same day, the CBFC urgently requested the Madras High Court to list its appeal against a single judge’s order. That order directed the board to immediately grant a U/A certificate to the movie. The Division Bench, later in the afternoon session, had stayed the order passed by the Single Bench. On January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court also refused to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench. Cause Title: Central Board of Film Certification and Anr. v. KVN Productions LLP [C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026] Chief Justice Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJustice G.Arul MuruganMadras High Court Aastha Kaushik Next Story Roads Do Not Have A Religious Character: Madras High Court Directs Removal Of Christian Shrine Encroaching Public Road A road or street does not acquire any religious character merely because a religious structure is placed upon it, and any encroachment on a public road is liable to be removed in accordance with statutory provisions, the High Court held while directing municipal authorities to proceed with the removal of a roadside shrine. ByMuhib Makhdoomi|27 Jan 2026 10:00 AM The Madras High Court, while directing the Greater Chennai Corporation to remove a Christian shrine encroaching upon a road, has held that a road or street does not have any religious character, and irrespective of whether a superstructure is religious or otherwise, any encroachment on a public road or street is required to be removed in accordance with law. The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking directions to the Greater Chennai Corporation to act on a complaint alleging that a shrine had been erected on a public pathway, causing obstruction to access and inconvenience to pedestrians. A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, while allowing the writ petition, observed that “a road or a street does not have any religious character, …irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, whether it is religious or irreligious, in case, it is an encroachment on a street or a public place or on a land vested to or belonging to a local body, the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same after due notice.” Advocate B. Kaarvannan appeared for the petitioner. Advocate E. C. Ramesh appeared for the respondents. Background The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that a raised structure had been erected on a public pathway abutting his property, and that a statue had been installed in the structure, obstructing access and causing inconvenience to pedestrians using the public road. It was pleaded that the structure had been represented as temporary at the time of purchase of the property, but was subsequently converted into a shrine with the installation of a statue, the erection of a tall pillar, the installation of an amplifier, and the unauthorised drawing of electricity from a nearby residential premises. The petitioner submitted a complaint to the Greater Chennai Corporation authorities seeking the removal of the encroachment. As no action was taken, the writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to act on the complaint. During the proceedings, the third respondent was impleaded and claimed that a shrine had been established several decades earlier and had become a place of worship for residents of the locality. It was contended that the shrine had existed for many years without objection and that its removal would affect religious sentiments and communal harmony. The Corporation authorities placed on record inspection reports and revenue records, including Town Survey Land Records, indicating that the land on which the structure was erected was classified as Sarkar Poramboke and recorded as a public street. The Regional Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, calling for the removal of the superstructure erected on the public road. Court’s Observation The High Court examined the revenue records and inspection reports and noted that the structure in question had been erected on a public pathway classified as Sarkar Poramboke Street. The Court held that the factual position regarding encroachment on a public road was not in dispute. The Bench rejected the plea that the long existence of the shrine could justify its continuance, holding that no person is entitled to erect or maintain a religious structure on a public road and thereafter resist its removal by invoking religious sentiments. Relying on precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Court reiterated that the right under Article 25 of the Constitution does not extend to offering worship or maintaining religious structures on public footpaths or roads, and that unauthorised religious structures on public pathways are not protected as essential religious practices. The Court referred to judicial precedents holding that religious freedom cannot be invoked to protect illegal structures on public streets, and that encroachments on public roads are liable to be removed irrespective of the religious or non-religious nature of the structure. The High Court further analysed the statutory scheme under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and held that the Commissioner is under a statutory duty to remove encroachments from public streets and places after issuing due notice. The Court held that the notice issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner was in compliance with statutory requirements and that the plea of inability to remove the idol could not be accepted, particularly when the third respondent had admitted to establishing and maintaining the shrine. The Bench also rejected the contention that long-standing encroachment confers any legal protection, holding that every moment an illegal structure remains on a public road gives rise to a fresh cause of action for removal. The Court further clarified that allegations made by the third respondent against the petitioner regarding alleged misuse of property or other issues were extraneous to the writ proceedings and could be agitated in appropriate separate proceedings. Conclusion The High Court directed the Corporation authorities to proceed with action under Section 128(1)(b) and Section 128(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act for the removal of the encroachment on the public road. The Court directed that the statutory notice issued to the third respondent be acted upon, and that the Commissioner pass appropriate orders and ensure implementation within the timelines indicated in the order. The writ petition was allowed in the above terms, and the matter was directed to be listed for compliance. Cause Title: A. Sarath v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai & Ors. Appearances Petitioner: B. Kaarvannan, Advocate Respondents: E. C. Ramesh, Udaya Kumar, S Baskar Advocates Click here to read/download Judgment Madras High CourtJustice V. Lakshminarayanan Muhib Makhdoomi Assistant Editor Muhib Makhdoomi is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. A law graduate with a background in media and research, he covers the Supreme Court and key High Courts. SIMILAR POSTS Madras High Court Roads Do Not Have A Religious Character: Madras High Court Directs Removal Of Christian Shrine… Madras High Court Violation Of Privacy, Discrimination And Ill-treatment: Madras High Court Quashes Order Seeking… Kerala High Court Continued Detention Of Children Of Sri Lankan Citizens Booked In NIA Case Is Deprivation Of Their… Madras High Court Persons With Disabilities Require Both Reservation & Welfare Measures: Madras High Court Holds Law… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Advertise with Us Newsletter Archive Sitemap © Copyright 2025Powered by Hocalwire
