‘Jana Nayagan’ censor row: Team hire seven SC lawyers; plans urgent petition ahead of January 21 hearing - Report

Actor turned politician Thalapathy Vijay starrer, the upcoming and his last film, ‘Jana Nayagan’ has been a topic of hot debate off lately due to the legal woes surrounding it CBFC certification and subsequent release. The movie, which features Pooja Hegde, Bobby Deol and Mamitha Baiju, was scheduled to hit the big screens on January 9, get finds itself involved in unexpected legal and censorship-related hurdles. Latest reports have suggested that the legal track now proceeds with the 'Jana Nayagan' team has hired a robust team to proceed with its battle. According to the latest update, film trade analyst Ramesh Bala shared an important development on his X (formerly Twitter) handle. He revealed that the ‘Jana Nayagan’ team has hired seven senior Supreme Court lawyers. The makers are reportedly planning to file an urgent petition against the Madras High Court bench’s stay order and the scheduled January 21 hearing. This move shows how serious the team is about resolving the issue at the earliest and bringing the film to theatres. During an earlier hearing at the Madras High Court, the presiding judge made strong remarks in favour of the film. The judge described the complaint raised against ‘Jana Nayagan’ as “dangerous” and said such objections should not be encouraged. The court questioned how a film could be sent for re-examination based on the objection of a single member. It was also noted that once a UA certificate is granted, the chairperson’s authority comes to an end. Following this, the High Court quashed the order that sent the film for re-examination and directed the board to issue the UA certificate without delay.However, the issue is not fully closed yet. The chairperson of the Censor Board has filed an appeal against the single judge’s order. The matter has now reached the Chief Justice’s bench, which has stated that the appeal will be considered after proper submission.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.