The Supreme Court is slated to hear on January 19 the plea filed by the producer of Vijay-starrer Tamil film “Jana Nayagan”, challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed a single-judge direction to grant CBFC clearance to the movie.
According to the cause list of the apex court, the matter is likely to come up for hearing on January 19.
The bench is yet to be assigned.
On January 9, the Madras High Court stayed a single judge’s order directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to immediately grant a censor certificate to “Jana Nayagan”, leaving the fate of actor-turned-politician Vijay’s film, which has drawn attention for its political overtones, in limbo.
KVN Productions LLP filed an appeal against the order passed by a division bench of the high court last Friday, which put on hold the single bench’s directive to the board to issue the film’s certificate forthwith.
Vijay recently launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)
“Jana Nayagan”, which is widely publicised as Vijay’s final film before his full-fledged entry into politics, was slated for a Pongal release on January 9.
However, the film ran into last-minute hurdles after the CBFC did not issue certification in time.
On January 9, the division bench’s order came hours after Justice PT Asha directed the CBFC to give clearance to “Jana Nayagan”, setting aside the film board’s directive to refer the matter to a review committee.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and G Arul Murugan, on an appeal filed by the CBFC, granted an interim stay against the single judge’s verdict.
Earlier, allowing the plea of KVN Productions seeking a direction to the CBFC to issue a censor certificate, Justice Asha said that once the board had decided to grant the certificate, the chairperson had no power to send the matter to the review committee.
The film board immediately preferred an appeal against the order.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared through video conferencing, outlined the grounds for the appeal before the division bench.
The January 6 letter of the CBFC, which was communicated to the producer of the film informing him that the matter was referred to the revising committee, was not at all under challenge. But the single judge set aside the letter and gave the above direction.
In its order, the division bench said the petition was filed on January 6 and the CBFC was not granted sufficient opportunity to file its reply.
There shall be a stay, the bench added, and ordered notice to the producer of the movie and posted the matter to January 21.