New DelhiAfter the Supreme Court declined to provide them with temporary relief, the producers of Thalapathy Vijay's Tamil Jana Nayagan suffered yet another setback. The Madras High Court was instructed to issue an order on January 20 after the Supreme Court referred the case to it.
The decision to award the movie a "A" certificate was contested in the plea.A bench made up of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih issued the order.
Senior attorney Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Jana Nayagan producers, began the Supreme Court of India hearing by outlining the predicament the producers were in as a result of the certification's stalling.
"This has to do with a movie, my lords. Look at the predicate I'm in now. It is customary in the industry to make an announcement. I have 5000 theaters in India and have set the 9th [for release]. I receive a certification stating that you will receive a U/A certificate with ten cuts. According to a Live Law report, Rohatgi told the court, "That happened on December 19," emphasizing that the release plans were locked well in advance based on this assurance.
In response, Justice Dipankar Datta commented on how quickly the case progressed through the High Court. All judges who decide cases within a day or two of filing are welcome. He said, "This is a blistering pace, but this should have in all cases."
The single-judge order, according to Justice Datta, was based on a 2024 ruling that did not apply in this particular case. "It must be contested; the learned judge cited a 2024 ruling that is inapplicable because it is a service issue." Return to the division bench," he commanded.
Reacting angrily, Rohatgi accused the producers of grave bias. He declared, "I have lost everything, this is complete malafide," adding that the film's chances could be irreversibly harmed by delays. "People won't wait after three months because publicity has already occurred," he clarified.
Rohatgi gave the court an explanation of the timeline, saying, "On 5, I filed writ and there was an email, I challenged that." I made a challenge on the sixth.
In response, Justice Datta emphasized the importance of procedural justice. Since that is the law, why shouldn't the party have a chance to respond? He stated, "Take this point before division bench," suggesting that the High Court should handle the issue.
Rohatgi made one last plea, asking the Supreme Court to at least guarantee an early ruling. "I have lost everything, so at least tell the division bench to make a decision on January 20," he declared.
The court issued a brief ruling after hearing arguments from both parties: "Let the division bench decide on January 20."
As a result, the Supreme Court refused to grant temporary relief and ordered that the Madras High Court's division bench decide the matter on the appointed date.
Read this as well: