Introduction:
In Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd. v. CBFC & Ors., the Bombay High Court, through a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite‑Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale, heard a writ petition challenging the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)’s decision to reject certification applications for the film Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi, ostensibly based on Shantanu Gupta’s book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister. The petitioners contended that the CBFC neither watched the film nor followed due process, instead rejecting the application via email. The Bench intervened emphatically, directing that the film must be screened and that a reasoned decision be issued, keeping in view statutory norms, filmmakers’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a) & 21 of the Constitution, and the significant investment and public interest involved.
Arguments of the Filmmakers:
Represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam and advocates Aseem Naphade, Satatya Anand, Nikhil Aradhe and others, the petitioners argued that the CBFC had committed arbitrary, unreasonable, and unexplained delay and mala fide conduct in processing certification applications—not only for the main film but also for its teaser, trailer and promotional song LawChakra+15Live Law+15Lawyer\’s Arc+15. They emphasised that the film’s planned release was August 1, 2025, but applications filed in early June 2025 remained unprocessed beyond the timelines mandated under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 (which require scrutiny within 7 days and referral for screening within 15 days). The filmmakers further complained that CBFC demanded a No Objection Certificate from the UP CM’s Office—a requirement having no basis in statute—and which unfairly impeded release and financial planning. They contended that since the source book had been in public domain for eight years with no legal objections, public order disruption arguments lacked merit.
Arguments of the CBFC:
The board defended its conduct by stating that it relies primarily on the script and dialogues for certification, and it is not mandated to actually watch the film before rejecting an application. CBFC further explained logistical complications: its members are spread across geographic regions and convening all members for a full screening would require additional time. Accordingly, CBFC requested an extension of one week to complete its review process.
Court’s Analysis & Judgment:
The Bench expressed frustration that CBFC had given no proper reply despite its earlier assurance on July 17 to decide within two working days. It was irked that certification was denied without actual viewing—merely based on script review—and questioned whether there was any rule preventing films based on constitutional office holders from being certified. The court also noted that another film based on the Prime Minister already existed in the public domain; likewise, the source book for Ajey has been in circulation for eight years without legal complaint.
The judges asked pointedly: “Why the hesitation to not watch the film? … There is a question of livelihood; a lot of funds are spent.” When CBFC repeated its scheduling difficulty, the Bench denied its request for delay, calling it contemptuous of its earlier order. It warned of contempt proceedings and demanded accountability from CBFC leadership.
Ultimately, the Court directed CBFC to screen the film by Wednesday, August 6, and take an appropriate, reasoned decision on certification the same day. It emphasized that CBFC’s reasoning must comply strictly with law and not await formal posting of court orders online.