New Delhi, Jan 13 (PTI) Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday alleged that the Centre’s “attempt to block” Vijay-starrer Jana Nayagan amounted to an attack on Tamil culture, and said Prime Minister Narendra Modi would never succeed in “suppressing the voice of the Tamil people”.
His remarks came a day after the producer of the Tamil film approached the Supreme Court, challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that stayed a single-judge directive to grant Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) clearance to the movie.
On January 9, the Madras High Court stayed a single judge’s order directing the CBFC to immediately issue a censor certificate to Jana Nayagan, leaving the fate of actor-turned-politician Vijay’s film, noted for its political overtones, uncertain.
In a post on X, Gandhi said, “The I&B Ministry’s attempt to block ‘Jana Nayagan’ is an attack on Tamil culture.” He added, “Mr Modi, you will never succeed in suppressing the voice of the Tamil people.”
KVN Productions LLP has 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 CBFC to issue the film’s certificate forthwith.
Vijay recently launched his political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). Jana Nayagan, widely publicised as his final film before a full-fledged entry into politics, was scheduled for a Pongal release on January 9. However, the film faced last-minute hurdles after the CBFC did not issue certification in time.
On January 9, the division bench’s order came hours after Justice P.T. Asha directed the CBFC to grant clearance to Jana Nayagan, setting aside the film board’s decision to refer the matter to a review committee.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice M.M. Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, on an appeal filed by the CBFC, granted an interim stay on the single judge’s verdict.
Earlier, allowing KVN Productions’ plea seeking a direction to the CBFC to issue a censor certificate, Justice Asha had held that once the board decided to grant certification, the chairperson had no authority to refer the matter to a review committee.
The CBFC subsequently filed an appeal against the order. Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing via video conferencing, outlined the grounds for the appeal before the division bench.
The division bench noted that the January 6 letter of the CBFC, informing the producer that the matter had been referred to the revising committee, was not under challenge, but the single judge had set it aside and issued directions. It further observed that the petition was filed on January 6 and the CBFC was not given sufficient opportunity to file its reply.
The bench granted a stay, issued notice to the producer, and posted the matter for further hearing on January 21. PTI