New Delhi, Jan. 16 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with a Madras High Court order staying a single judge's direction to grant a "UA 16+" certificate to the Vijay-starrer Tamil film Jana Nayagan, observing that the matter was actively pending before a division bench of the high court. While Vijay (the mononym by which actor Joseph Vijay Chandrasekhar is popularly known) himself has not commented on it, both DMK leader and Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi have said that the reasons for the delay in the certification are political. To be sure, Vijay has consistently attacked the DMK, while the local units of both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party have made efforts to reach out to his fledgling political outfit. On Thursday, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih noted that since the division bench of the high court had already seized of the dispute and listed it for hearing on January 20, there was no occasion for the apex court to step in at this stage. The bench said the film's producers were at liberty to raise all their legal contentions before the high court. At the same time, the Supreme Court urged the high court to make an endeavour to decide the matter finally on January 20, after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for KVN Productions, pressed the urgency of the issue, arguing that a film was a "perishable commodity" and that substantial investments had already been made towards booking theatres and promotional activities. The movie was originally supposed to be released on January 9. Rohatgi told the bench that over 5,000 theatres had been booked for the film's release and that delays in certification were causing irreparable commercial harm. He submitted that it was a long-settled industry practice to announce release dates well before receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). But the bench appeared disinclined to bypass the high court's process. It remarked that when the division bench had already listed the matter for January 20, there was no reason for the apex court to intervene. He also pointed out that the CBFC chairperson's order dated January 6, referring the film to the Revising Committee, had not been specifically challenged before the high court. The bench questioned the "brisk pace" at which the matter was decided within a day of being reserved for orders, while also declining to grant adequate time to the opposing parties to file their written submissions. "Why should the party not be given a chance to reply?" the bench asked....