The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the unexplained delay in processing certification applications for a film reportedly based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The court warned the censor board against sitting idle on such applications, especially when filmmakers have paid for priority processing.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale expressed displeasure over the CBFC’s inaction, pointing out that the board had failed to adhere to the statutory timelines under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
“You cannot sit on an application, especially when they have paid the priority charges. The application has to be decided,” the bench observed.
Following the court’s stern remarks, the CBFC informed the bench that it would decide on the applications within two days and communicate the outcome to the filmmakers. Accepting this assurance, the court disposed of the petition filed by Samrat Cinematics, the production house behind the film Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi.
The film, inspired by the book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister, is purportedly based on the life of Yogi Adityanath and was originally slated for release on August 1.
In their petition, Samrat Cinematics alleged that the CBFC had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably by not processing certification applications for the film, teaser, trailer, and promotional song—even after the production house reapplied under the CBFC’s priority scheme and paid triple the usual fee.
Senior counsel Ravi Kadam, along with advocates Satatya Anand and Nikhil Aradhe, told the court that the rules mandate certification decisions within five days. Despite this, no screening was scheduled for nearly a month after the initial application on June 5, 2025. A priority screening was scheduled for July 7 but was cancelled a day earlier without explanation, the petition stated.
The filmmakers also objected to what they termed an “erroneous, extraneous, and baseless” demand from CBFC officials to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s office. They argued that such a requirement has no basis in law.
“The CBFC’s demand for an NOC from the CM’s office is completely unfounded and outside the scope of the certification process,” the petition contended.
