Bombay High Court slammed CBFC for refusing to certify the film Ajey without even watching it. The Court said rejection must follow proper legal process, not assumptions.
Mumbai: On August 1, the Bombay High Court has strongly questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for refusing to process the certification application of the film Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi, which is said to be inspired by the book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister, based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing a plea filed by the film’s producers, Samrat Cinematics, challenging the CBFC’s delay and subsequent refusal to certify the film.
The court sought to know whether there is any provision under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, that stops filmmakers from making movies or teasers about a person holding a constitutional post.
Justice Gokhale questioned the CBFC in open court:
“What’s the law? Is there any provision that says that a film or teaser cannot be made on a constitutional authority? There is, in fact, a movie on the PM. We just want to know whether there is a provision that you cannot certify a film based on person holding constitutional authority. You can ask them to make cuts. Before seeing the film how can you reject the application.”
Previously, on July 17, during an earlier hearing, CBFC had informed the Court that it would decide on the application within two working days. However, on July 21, the CBFC, through an email sent by its CEO, refused to process the certification application.
The reason cited was that since CM Yogi Adityanath holds a constitutional post and is also the Mahant of the Gorakhnath Math, the film could potentially “outrage certain sections of people”.
This prompted the producers to move the court again, arguing that the CBFC’s communication was not a formal rejection under the law and hence was not appealable under the Act. The CBFC’s counsel, meanwhile, asked for more time to file a detailed reply.
The Court critically examined CBFC’s conduct and expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the certification application was handled. Justice Dere remarked:
“You have not considered the application as per our earlier order as per the rules. You have not done anything, you have given them the same email that you are not gonna process it… See your letter. It says… It cannot be processed at all.”
She further said,
“Your affidavit cannot be reasons for grounds not found in the order… This has to show application of mind.”
The Court stressed that the CBFC failed to apply its mind and had not even viewed the film before refusing to process the application. It asked CBFC whether it would now watch the film as per the provisions of the Cinematograph Act.
In response, CBFC informed the court:
“We will screen the film within a week.”
The Court was not satisfied with the delay. It asked:
“What is this that you are delaying it further? It’s been so long. When did you get the application?”
The producers replied that the application was submitted on June 5.
The Court further pressed:
“Normally how much time do you take…? Why didn’t you do it earlier..? You should apply criteria as per Section 5(b)… only under Section 5(b)… You can reject… Be fair… A lot of people’s livelihood is at stake… They have put money… They have worked toward this… Especially when there is no injunction suit or defamation suit… The book has been in wide circulation…”
The CBFC then noted:
“The book has said that it is based on this person… But the movie says it’s based on the book but not on the person.”
To which the Court asked:
“So do you want the disclaimer… Why the hesitation, reluctance to see the film?”
The Court highlighted that 15 days had already passed since the previous assurance and directed CBFC to make a decision by Wednesday and listed the matter for Thursday.
The CBFC then sought more time, citing the logistical challenge of board members coming from different cities. The Court questioned:
“Who are the members… Where are they from?”
CBFC replied:
“Mumbai… Chennai…”
To this, the bench observed:
“Today if you say… They can take a flight…”
The judges were visibly displeased and noted:
“We feel that you are trying to stonewall this.”
The producers, through their counsel, submitted that the CBFC was fully aware of the situation on July 17 and yet failed to act.
“CBFC was cognisant of this fact on 17th… and then when I sent a mail on 21st at 5 o’clock stating you are in contempt… They haphazardly sent a communication at midnight… On 17th they were aware that they won’t be able to do in 2 days…”
The Court once again demanded accountability and remarked:
“You said that you will decide within 2 days… See your letter… You scrutinised the application or the film? We want you to tell that you will do it by Wednesday… You make a statement… High time you take responsibility for your action…”
CBFC finally submitted:
“We will consider this as per the rules…”
In its formal order, the Court observed that the petitioners were aggrieved by an email dated July 21, 2025, from CBFC which effectively rejected their application for film certification in contravention of the Cinematograph Act.
The Court noted that although CBFC had on July 17 assured the Court it would decide the matter within two working days, the film was not viewed, and rejection appeared to be solely based on the subject matter concerning a constitutional authority and concerns about public order.
The order records:
“We have perused the letter dated 21st July. The film has not been viewed by the CBFC… It appears that merely because the film pertains to a constitutional authority and may affect public order… the application was rejected…”
The Court concluded the hearing with a direction:
“CBFC counsel on the instructions of CEO informs that the film will be viewed by board on or before Wednesday- 6th August 2025 and appropriate decision will be taken. We make it clear that the decision should be strictly based on Act and rules.”
The matter is now listed for compliance on August 7, 2025.
Advocates Aseem Naphade, Satatya Anand, Nikhil Aradhe, Uttam Dubey and Rajuram Kuleria appeared for Samrat Cinematics.
Senior Advocate AS Khandeparkar represented CBFC and Union of India.
Background: Bombay High Court Slams CBFC Over Refusal to Certify Film on Yogi Adityanath
The film’s production house, Samrat Cinematics, represented by advocates Aseem Naphade, Satatya Anand, and Nikhil Aradhe, informed the Court that the CBFC had rejected the applications for certification of the movie, its trailer, and even its songs — without even watching the film.
A bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale was visibly displeased with CBFC’s conduct and issued notice to the Board, asking it to explain the legal basis of its decision.
The Court sharply questioned,
“If no objection was taken to the book, how could a film inspired by it disturb public order?”
Highlighting the CBFC’s statutory duty, the Court asked why the Board was unwilling to screen the film and whether there was any provision in the Cinematograph Act that prohibits certification of a film based on a person holding constitutional authority.
Justice Gokhale remarked,
“Before seeing the film, how can you reject the application?”
The judges made it clear that the rejection appeared to be without any application of mind and directed CBFC to process the application strictly in accordance with the Cinematograph Act and Rules, setting August 1 as the next date of hearing.
The lead actor, Anant Joshi, who underwent a complete physical transformation for the role, described it as an emotional and spiritual shift.
“Losing it wasn’t just a cosmetic change — it was letting go of a part of myself,” he told IANS.
“But this role demanded that sacrifice. I knew I couldn’t fake it. I had to live it. I had to become Yogi, not just act like him.”
CASE TITLE:
Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd vs CBFC and Ors
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CM Yogi Adityanath Biopic ‘Ajey’
