Bombay High Court Rebukes CBFC, Forbids Insistence on NOC for Yogi Adityanath Biopic

Mumbai, India – In a significant judicial intervention championing procedural fairness and artistic freedom, the Bombay High Court has explicitly directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) not to insist on a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from any authority for the certification of a film. The order came during the hearing of a petition filed by the makers of "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi," a film based on a book about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale delivered a sharp reprimand to the CBFC for its handling of the certification request, underscoring that the Board must adhere strictly to the procedures laid out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its associated rules.

The Core of the Controversy: A Demand for Political Approval?

The legal battle commenced after the CBFC rejected the certification application for the film. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Aseem Naphade, made a startling submission in court: the CEO of the CBFC had allegedly advised the filmmakers to secure an NOC directly from Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. It was further claimed that the CBFC chairman had offered to facilitate a meeting with the Chief Minister for this purpose.

This allegation of requiring prior approval from the very subject of the biopic—a powerful constitutional post-holder—formed the crux of the petitioners' grievance and became a focal point of the court's scrutiny. While the CBFC's counsel, Senior Advocate A.S. Khandeparkar, argued that the Chairman had passed a "reasonable order," the court was unpersuaded by the suggestion of such an extra-statutory requirement.

The bench unequivocally shut down this line of reasoning, stating a clear and firm directive: "We make ourselves very clear, you will not insist on any certificate or affidavit from any authority for certifying the film." This declaration serves as a potent reminder that the CBFC's mandate is to certify, not to seek political or personal endorsements for creative works.

A Procedural Masterclass from the Bench

Beyond the issue of the NOC, the High Court’s intervention provided a crucial lesson in administrative procedure. The bench was particularly irked by the CBFC's failure to provide specific, written reasons for its rejection, a clear violation of the statutory rules.

Initially, the court had pulled up the CBFC for rejecting the film based solely on the script, without having viewed the final cut. Despite an assurance on July 17 that it would follow norms, the CBFC proceeded to reject the application again, this time after viewing the film, but still without detailing the objectionable content.

"Why can't [the CBFC] tell them what are the scenes?" the bench remarked orally. "They can give a disclaimer. These are not reasons. This isn't as per the rules."

The court elaborated on the correct procedure, which the CBFC had demonstrably failed to follow. "Rules tell that you give them reasons and the scenes and dialogues which are objectionable, and then they make the changes or work it out. But you didn't follow these rules," the bench observed. This failure to communicate the grounds for rejection effectively denies filmmakers the opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue, make necessary edits, or prepare a cogent appeal, striking at the heart of procedural fairness.

Legal Analysis: Upholding Statutory Limits and Freedom of Expression

This case is a classic example of judicial review over administrative action, reining in a statutory body that appeared to be overstepping its legal bounds. The High Court's decision rests on several key legal pillars:

1. Adherence to the Cinematograph Act, 1952: The court's order is fundamentally a directive for the CBFC to act within the four corners of its enabling statute. By demanding specific reasons for cuts or rejection, the court is enforcing the procedural safeguards built into the law to prevent arbitrary decision-making.

2. The Role of the CBFC as a Certifier, Not a Censor: The judgment implicitly reinforces the distinction between censorship and certification. The CBFC’s role is not to act as a moral or political arbiter that can demand pre-clearance from individuals depicted in a film. Its function, as affirmed by numerous Supreme Court judgments, is to classify films for different audiences and, where necessary under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, suggest modifications. The alleged demand for an NOC from a political figure represents a dangerous slide towards pre-censorship.

3. Protection of Article 19(1)(a): While not explicitly cited in the provided source, the entire proceeding is imbued with the spirit of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. Requiring a filmmaker to obtain an NOC from the subject of a biopic, especially a powerful politician, would create an insurmountable chilling effect on political commentary and biographical storytelling, core components of protected speech. The court's order safeguards this fundamental right by removing an arbitrary and intimidating barrier.

The Path Forward: A Strict Timeline for Compliance

In its final order, the court charted a clear and time-bound path to resolution. While directing the filmmakers to approach the statutory Revisional Committee, it first ensured they would be armed with the necessary information to do so.

• The CBFC's Revisional Committee was directed to provide the filmmakers with a detailed list of all objectionable scenes and dialogues by August 11.
• The Committee must then make a final decision on the film's certification by August 13.

This structured timeline ensures that the process, which had stalled due to procedural lapses, moves forward efficiently while respecting the rights of the filmmakers. It forces the CBFC to articulate its objections, shifting the burden from the filmmaker to the state to justify any proposed restrictions on expression. For legal practitioners in media and entertainment law, this case reinforces the importance of holding administrative bodies accountable to their statutory duties and serves as a powerful precedent against the imposition of extra-legal conditions on film certification.