Amazon has warned that it would initiate legal action if there was no clarity on the film’s release by December 31. During the censor certificate case, the producers informed the High Court about the mounting pressure over the film’s release uncertainty.
Amazon Prime has reportedly cautioned KVN Productions, stating it holds no responsibility for the film’s theatrical release delays. The platform has asserted that Jana Nayagan will be released on OTT strictly as per the date mentioned in the agreement.
We all know that if the judgment goes in our favour, CBFC will appeal to the Supreme Court, and if it goes against us, the producers will approach the higher court. So waiting for the verdict feels pointless. Also, the film definitely won’t release before the elections that was never the real plan. They will surely postpone it.
The ASG argued that the standing committee’s recommendation states the central government cannot recall or review a film after certification. However, he maintained that the CBFC Board is exercising its lawful powers, and any challenge to this can only be pursued through a writ of certiorari after issuing proper notice.
With this, arguments in the case have concluded.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai contended that the producers were not provided with any documents related to the process. He further argued that once the Chairperson had already decided, on behalf of the Board, to certify the film, he could not legally send it back for further review.
Parasaran stated that the CBFC website only contains an intimation that the movie is being sent to the revising committee. He added that the remarks were uploaded only after the petition was filed.
The Chief Justice observed that allowing such relief could open the floodgates, with everyone claiming a strong case, noting that the producers were not even given a day’s time. Parasaran responded that there was no dispute on the factual position in the present matter.
Parasaran submitted that the Rules require the Regional Committee to communicate the chairperson’s decision. In this case, he said, the regional office informed that the film would be certified subject to cuts, and any objection to those incisions could be separately challenged.