Bombay High Court

Samrat Cinematics Private Limited vs Central Board Of Film Certification on 25 August, 2025

Author: Revati Mohite Dere

Bench: Revati Mohite Dere

2025:BHC-OS:14166-DB

                                                                         4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                WRIT PETITION (L) NO.23721 OF 2025

            Samrat Cinematics Private
            Limited                                               .....Petitioner
                  Vs.
            Central Board of Film
            Certification and Anr.                                .....Respondents

            Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr.
            Vagish Mishra, Mr. Satatya Anand, Mr. Nikhil Aradhe, Mr. Rajuram
            Kuleriya, Mr. Varad Dubey, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Emad Khan
            and Ms. Mohini Gaud i/b Mr. Rajuram Kuleriya, for the Petitioner.

            Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. D. P. Singh, Mr. Saurabh
            Mishra, Mr. Dhanshree Bhate i/by Govind Mishra, for Respondent
            Nos.1 and 2.

                                                 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
                                                            DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                                  DATE : 25th AUGUST 2025.
            ORDER:

- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of

the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner seeks setting aside of letter/e-mail dated 21 st

July 2025 issued by the Respondent No.1, i.e., Central Board of Film

Certification (CBFC) by which the CBFC rejected an application for

certification of a film titled 'Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi' without

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

even screening/examination of the said film. According to the

Petitioner, refusal to even screen or examine the film is in

contravention to the procedures established under the Cinematograph

Act, 1952 and Certification Rules of 2024 ('the Act' and 'the Rules').

3. Prior to the present petition, the Petitioner had filed Writ

Petition (l) No. 21274 of 2025 seeking a direction to the CBFC to

forthwith process and grant certification for the aforesaid film along

with its teaser, trailer and promotional song within a period not

exceeding five days since the release of the said film was slated to be

on 1st August 2025. When the said Petition was listed on 17 th July

2025, Ms. Geeta Budhwarkar, Assistant, CBFC was present and she

tendered a letter received by the CBFC. The letter was addressed by

an officer from the CMO of the State of Uttar Pradesh conveying to

the CBFC that the said film may not be certified since it was inspired

by a book authored by Shantanu Gupta, titled as 'The Monk Who

Became Chief Minister' and was based on the biography of the Chief

Minister of Uttar Pradesh, a Constitutional Authority.

4. The Petitioner was thus, aggrieved by the outright refusal

of the CBFC to even as much as screen the movie, only on the basis of

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

the request made by the official from the CMO of Uttar Pradesh.

Since there is no provision under the Act or the Rules/Guidelines made

thereunder to refuse to even screen a film on such a letter, by order

dated 17th July 2025, we recorded the statement of Mr. Abhay

Khandeparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CBFC, that

the CBFC shall process the film and the Petitioner's application for

certification shall be decided by the CBFC within the next two

working days. On the said statement, nothing survived for further

consideration in the Petition and hence, we disposed of the same

leaving all merits and contentions of the parties open.

5. It appears that the film was not viewed by the CBFC as per

the statement made and recorded in the order dated 17 th July 2025.

Once again, the pretext for not viewing the film was stated to be

because the film is based on a person holding a constitutional post,

i.e., the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the same is likely to affect

the public at large and the CBFC had received a serious objection in

writing from the Director, Information & Public Relations

Department, Uttar Pradesh. Be that as it may, Mr. Khandeparkar, on

the instructions of the CEO, CBFC made a statement that the film will

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

be viewed by the concerned Authority of the CBFC on or before 6 th

August 2025 and that an appropriate decision will be taken and

communicated to the Petitioner on the same date. We accepted the

statement and posted the matter for 'Reporting Compliance' on 7 th

August 2025.

6. Expectantly, on 7th August 2025 we were informed that

the CBFC had refused to certify the film on the ground that it violated

clauses 1(a), 2(ix), 2(xii) and 2(xviii) of the Guidelines for

Certification of the Films. Mr. Khandeparkar, conveyed to us that

since the film was now screened and rejected, the Petitioner had a

remedy to file an appropriate application before the Revising

Committee under Rule 25 of the relevant Rules. Accordingly, Mr.

Aseem Naphade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated

that the Petitioner will file an appropriate application on the next

date. We directed the CBFC to inform any objectionable

contents/dialogues in the film to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was

to communicate to the CBFC as to whether the Petitioner was ready

to re-work/delete the objectionable content as pointed out by the

CBFC. Thereafter, on 18th August, 2025, we were informed that the

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

Revising Committee passed a final order dated 17 th August 2025

rejecting certification. Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Petitioner sought permission to amend the Petition

to challenge the said order dated 17 th August 2025.

7. Thus, now the amended petition assails order dated 17 th

August 2025 issued by the Revising Committee of CBFC refusing to

certify the said film.

8. The impugned order as communicated to the Petitioner

stated that the Revising Committee had dropped the objections

mentioned under Sr.Nos. 6, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 25 and 28 in the

Examining Committee's detailed report. However, the other

objections at Sr. Nos.1 to 5, 7,10 to 15, 17 to 19, 22 to 24 and 26 to

29 remained. These remaining objections were considered valid by the

Revising Committee and found to be in gross violation of the

Guidelines of the CBFC framed under Section 5-B of the Act.

9. During the hearing of the petition, Mr. Khandeparkar,

raised a preliminary objection that Section 5-C of the Act provides for

an appeal to the High Court and thus, a writ petition under Article

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

226 of the Constitution of India may not be an appropriate remedy.

After some arguments however, Mr. Khandeparkar conceded that

considering the assignment of the matters, the petition may be

maintainable before us. The issue of maintainability out of the way as

such, we proceeded with the hearing. Since, prima facie, we did not

find that the objections raised by the Revising Committee fell within

the scope and ambit of Section 5-B(1) of the Act, which provides

principles for guidance in certifying films, we decided to view the film

privately so as to ascertain as to whether the objections taken by the

Revising Committee were contextually justified. The parties gave us a

pen drive along with the book on which the said film is stated to have

been cinematographed.

10. We have viewed the film and are of the considered opinion

that the objections raised by the Revising Committee neither fall

within the scope and ambit of Section 5-B(1) nor the guidelines

framed under Section 5-B(2) of the Act. Section 5-B of the Act reads as

thus:

"5-B. Principles for guidance in certifying films.-(1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition."

11. Admittedly, the CBFC does not have any objection to

release of the film per-se but has refused certification only on the

points of objections raised in the impugned order. Therefore, it

follows that the said objections to be valid, must satisfy the parameters

set out in Section 5-B(1) of the Act. Upon viewing the film especially

the scenes/dialogues, which are objected to, we find that none of the

scenes/dialogues offend the security of the State, the interest of the

sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, public

order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of the

Court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. The said

objections are thus, not justified and cannot form the basis to reject

certification of the said film.

12. Today, Mr. Ram Apte, learned Senior Counsel, appears for

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

the CBFC. He further contended that the Central Government has

formulated Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition

in exercise of its power under Section 5-B(2) of the Act. He pointed to

guideline 1(a), 2(ix), 2(xii), 2(xvii) and 2(xviii). He also invited our

attention to Guideline No.6 relating to the power of the board to

scrutinize the title of a film and ensure that they are not provocative,

vulgar, offensive or violative of any guideline. The title of the film is

stated to be 'Ajey The Untold Story of a Yogi '. From the said title, it is

clear that it does not offend Guideline 6 at all. As far as the other

Guidelines are concerned, we are satisfied that there is no content in

the film which violates the aforesaid guidelines. There is nothing

insensitive to the values and standards of the society, de-grading or

denigrating women, any words contemptuous of racial, religious or

other groups nor does the content involve visuals or words involving

defamation of an individual. We thus, have no hesitation in rejecting

this contention of the CBFC.

13. Mr. Apte however, contends that public order is likely to

be affected by the content of the said film. He also submits that the

protagonist of the film is the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and the

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

film is thus, based on actual life of the personality. We are of the

considered view that this is most impermissible ground to reject the

certification of the film. The protection of the Constitution does not

extend only to fictional depictions of artistic themes. Artist, film

makers and playwrights are affirmatively entitled to allude to

incidents, which have taken place and present a version of those

incidents, which according to them, represents a balanced portrayal of

social reality. Free speech and expression is a value which is

fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. If the

personality himself has any objection to depicting his life story or

personality in the film, or if he has any objection to the film on the

ground of defamation, etc., there was nothing to stop him from filing

appropriate proceeding and seeking appropriate relief. None of the

parties have brought to our notice any such suit or proceeding filed in

any Court of law, till date. The CBFC cannot be a proxy entity

defending any such individual, who himself is entitled by law to seek

any such relief. Thus, the Revising Committee is palpable in error in

rejecting the film on the ground that it depicts a real life personality.

14. Insofar as Mr. Apte's contention regarding breach of

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

public order is concerned, it is for the Government concerned to see

that law and order situation is maintained as in any democratic society,

there are bound to be divergent views. It is the clear duty of the

Government to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking

appropriate actions against the persons, who choose to breach the law.

15. Mr. Apte invited our attention to the judgment of the

Madras High Court in the matter of K. Ganeshan v. Film Certification

Appellate Tribunal, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and

Ors.1. We have perused the said judgment. The decision in the said

judgment arose from the writ petition filed by the producer of the film

based on the life of one Ms. Isai Priya. Her sister and mother had filed

the suit seeking permanent injunction against releasing, publishing,

exhibiting of a film based on the life of Isai Priya. The order of CBFC

was upheld in the said decision. The said decision does not further the

case of the CBFC at all. In fact, in paragraph 67 of the said case, the

High Court held that censorship of a film has to be on a case to case

basis and there cannot be a uniform policy for deciding as to whether

the film is fit for public exhibition. Admittedly, the petition in that

matter pertained to the life of a person, whose family itself was a

1 2016-4 L.W. 961

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

plaintiff in a suit seeking permanent injunction against the film.

16. Mr. Ravi Kadam, on the other hand, invited our attention

to the decision of this Court in the matter of F A Picture International

v. CBFC & Anr.2. Paragraph 13 of the decision reads thus:

"13...........The certifying authority and the Tribunal were palpably in error in rejecting the film on the ground that it had characters which bear a resemblance to real life personalities. The constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) that a film maker enjoys is not conditioned on the premise that he must depict something which is not true to life. The choice is entirely his. Those who hold important positions must have shoulders which are broad enough to accept with grace a critique of themselves. Critical appraisal is the cornerstone of democracy and the power of the film as a medium of expression lies in its ability to contribute to that appraisal."

17. Since the film appears to be inspired by the definite

biography of the present Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, we do deem

it appropriate that the Petitioner screen a disclaimer at the beginning

of the film. Mr. Kadam tendered the content of a disclaimer that the

Petitioner is ready and willing to exhibit at the beginning of the film.

The disclaimer reads as thus:

2 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 961

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

"DISCLAIMER

This film is a cinematic adaptation and dramatisation of the book "The Monk Who Became Chief Minister", by Shantanu Gupta and is meant solely for the purpose of entertainment.

The characters, events, incidents, locations, dialogues have been fictionalised for the purpose of dramatisation of the performance and the incidents portrayed. With respect to such fictionalisations, any similarity to the name or to the actual character or history of any person, living or dead or any product or entity or any actual incident is entirely for dramatic purposes and not intended to reflect on any character, history, political party, product or entity. Nothing shown in the film is intended to defame any person dead or alive. Neither the content of this film, not the makers of this film and other person(a) associated with this film intend to disgrace, offend or hurt any religious sentiments, beliefs or feelings of any person, community or class of person(s), and/or a political party in any manner whatsoever. The usage of certain expressions in the film are purely for dramatising the performances and the makers of the film and/or any other person(s) associated with the film do not support the usage of such expressions by any person. No animals were harmed during the making of this film."

18. Considering the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons

that we have indicated herein above, we are of the view that the order

passed by the Revising Committee dated 17 th August 2025 refusing

4-WP(L)-23721-2025.doc

certification to the film is unsustainable and must be quashed and set

aside. We order accordingly. We direct the CBFC to grant certification

to the Petitioner's film titled 'Ajey The Untold Story of a Yogi' within a

period of two days from the date of uploading of this order. The

Petitioner shall add the disclaimer as aforesaid at the beginning of the

film. The Petition is allowed and stands disposed of.

19. Rule is accordingly, made absolute.

20. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.