Overview A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan , has reserved its orders on a writ appeal filed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) against a single judge’s order. The single judge had directed the CBFC to issue a U/A 16+ certificate for actor Vijay’s movie Jana Nayagan . The decision was deferred after hearing arguments from both sides on January 20, 2026 . Key Developments Arguments and Supreme Court's Direction The arguments were presented by Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan for the CBFC and senior counsel Satish Parasaran , assisted by Vijayan Subramanian , for KVN Productions LLP . The Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the interim stay granted earlier, requested the Division Bench to expedite the decision on the appeal. Background of the Case Initial Recommendation: The CBFC’s examining committee watched the movie on December 19, 2025 , and recommended a U/A 16+ certificate, subject to certain excisions. Compliance: The production firm carried out the excisions and resubmitted the movie on December 24, 2025 . Process Halt: On December 29, 2025 , the CBFC put the process on hold due to a complaint from an examining committee member regarding the absence of an Army expert. Revising Committee: A decision was made on January 5, 2026 , to refer the movie to a nine-member revising committee. Single Judge's Order: On January 9, 2026 , the single judge quashed the CBFC chairman’s decision and directed the issuance of the U/A 16+ certificate. Interim Stay: The CBFC filed an urgent writ appeal and obtained an interim stay, which the Supreme Court declined to interfere with. Single Judge’s Reasoning (Justice P.T. Asha) Justice P.T. Asha highlighted that the five-member examining committee had unanimously recommended the U/A 16+ certificate after the initial viewing on December 19, 2025 . The producers complied with the recommended excisions and resubmitted the edited version on December 24, 2025 . The judge expressed surprise at the sudden volte face by a member of the examining committee, who lodged a complaint after the producers had already made the suggested changes. Justice Asha stated that such actions could erode the sanctity of the CBFC’s examining committee decisions and create a dangerous precedent. UPSC Relevance This case is relevant to GS2: Government Policies and Interventions , Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial bodies , and Judiciary . It highlights the functioning of regulatory bodies like the CBFC, the scope of judicial review, and the balance between artistic freedom and regulatory oversight. Key Terms for UPSC CBFC: Central Board of Film Certification, a statutory body regulating film exhibition. Writ Appeal: An appeal against a single judge's order to a division bench. U/A 16+ Certificate: Film certification category with parental guidance for children below 16. Judicial Review: Power of the judiciary to review executive and legislative actions.