Court emphasizes statutory requirement of Board or duly authorized delegate's decision, orders fresh hearing for Punjabi film "Chardikala" after procedural lapses found in CBFC's refusal
In a significant judgment delivered on 7th September 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Harkesh Manuja, quashed the orders of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that refused certification to the Punjabi film titled "Chardikala." The Court found that the orders dated 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 were invalid as they were passed by the Regional Officer without proper delegation of authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The appellant, Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal, challenged the refusal of certification by the CBFC, which had been conveyed through orders signed by the Regional Officer rather than the Board or a competent delegate as mandated by Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act. The Court scrutinized the statutory provisions and observed that the Board alone, or a delegate authorized explicitly by the Central Government under Section 7B of the Act, can exercise powers related to film certification.
The Court noted that the impugned orders were issued prior to any formal delegation to the Chairperson or Regional Officer under Section 7B. It highlighted that while Section 7B(2) allows the Central Government to authorize a Regional Officer to issue provisional certificates, it does not empower them to refuse certification outright. The absence of such delegation rendered the orders without jurisdiction and hence invalid.
Significantly, the Court underscored the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 4, which requires that an applicant be given an opportunity of hearing before certification can be refused. The impugned orders, although mentioned hearing opportunities, were procedurally defective since the decision-making authority itself was unauthorized.
Responding to the Court's direction, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order on 29.08.2026 delegating the Board's certification powers to the Chairperson of CBFC with immediate effect. Following this, the Regional Officer withdrew the earlier refusal orders on 06.09.2026 and committed to reconsider the certification application afresh, providing the appellant due hearing and disclosure of the Examining and Revising Committees' reports (excluding members' identities).
The Court further criticized the delay caused by the procedural irregularities, noting that the appellant, having applied under the priority scheme and paid an enhanced fee on 12.05.2026, had been kept waiting for nearly four months, suffering commercial prejudice.
The judgment reiterates the importance of strict compliance with statutory timelines and delegation protocols under the Cinematograph Act and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. It clarifies that Examining and Revising Committees serve as recommendatory bodies only, and the final decision must rest with the Board or a properly authorized delegate.
The appeal was disposed of with directions that the fresh consideration of the application must be conducted promptly, following all procedural requirements, including the provision of a hearing opportunity to the appellant.
This ruling strengthens the procedural safeguards in the film certification process and reaffirms the necessity for competent authority and due process, thereby protecting filmmakers from arbitrary or unauthorized decisions impacting freedom of expression and commercial interests.
Bottom Line:
Orders for film certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, must be passed by the Board or a competent delegate as per Section 4. Orders issued without appropriate delegation of authority are invalid.
Statutory provision(s): Cinematograph Act, 1952 Sections 4, 7B; Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 Rules 23(6), 33(2), 37
