Jana Nayagan Movie Release Date Hearing Live Update: Madras HC reserves order

Parasaran stated that the impugned communication claimed the Chairman had withdrawn the earlier decision. He added that the January 5 intimation said the film was being sent to the revising committee following a complaint alleging hurt religious sentiments.

Parasaran stated that the single judge had indeed been informed and that the communication was quashed. The CJ questioned how the board could be considered directed to certify if only the communication was quashed. Parasaran replied that he will elaborate further.

CJ questioned whether the matter was brought to the single judge’s notice, noting that the order does not mention it as a communication. The court added that they must rely on the arguments presented now.

The ASG concluded his arguments, and Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran has now started submissions on behalf of KVN Productions.

The Chief Justice noted that the single judge ruled the power to refer for review ends once a certification communication is made. The ASG countered, saying that the observation is incorrect because the final certification still depends on the Board’s decision.

The Chief Justice asked the ASG if his arguments were complete, to which the ASG replied that he had addressed only the initial issues, not the merits. The CJ clarified that the court wants to decide the preliminary issue first, but allowed the ASG to proceed on merits if he wished.

After 30 minutes of arguments, the CBFC insisted that the producers were not given a fair opportunity to counter the case, and also highlighted that the Chairman’s decision was never challenged in court.

The ASG argued that the correctness of the decision could not be examined if the petition had only sought certiorari, as he would have had the opportunity to respond only then. He added that relief was granted despite no such prayer being made, leaving him without a chance to present his response.

The Chief Justice asked whether this aspect had been recorded in the single judge’s order and if it was brought to the court’s notice. The ASG confirmed that it was mentioned in the order and duly placed before the court.

The ASG said that all arguments in the case were completed on January 7. After this, the producer’s lawyer requested that the order be pronounced on January 8. The single judge responded by saying that the order would be delivered either on the evening of January 8 or on the morning of January 9.

Finally, the ASG said that the order was pronounced on January 9. Through this order, the single judge quashed the CBFC chairman’s decision, even though that decision was never directly challenged by the producers in their writ petition.

The ASG said that this important fact was also informed to the single judge during the hearing on January 6 at around 3 pm. He stated that the CBFC clearly told the court about the chairman’s decision to refer the film to the revising committee. Despite this, the single judge asked the CBFC to submit the original records and the complaint to the court on January 7 at 2:15 pm.

According to the ASG, the original records were submitted to the court officer on January 7 as directed. The single judge then went through these records privately in her chambers. After reviewing them, she began hearing the writ petition again in the afternoon on the same day.

The Madras High Court hearing day began as scheduled at 11.30 AM. Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan were on the bench. The Jana Nayagan case was listed as Item 17, so it was clear from the start that people had to wait. Item 3 was taken up first. After that, Item 4 was heard. Then Item 5 came up, followed by Item 6. Each case took its own time. Nothing moved fast. People who were following updates kept checking again and again. Every small update mattered. Fans of Vijay were especially alert because this case is directly linked to Jana Nayagan.