CBFC Regional Officer Lacked Power to Refuse Certification of Punjabi Film ‘Chardikala’, Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Fresh Decision

The appellant applied to the Central Board of Film Certification (“CBFC”) on 12 May 2026 for certification of the Punjabi film “Chardikala” under Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The Regional Officer, CBFC, issued orders dated 26 May 2026 and 14 July 2026 refusing certification, relying respectively on the recommendations of the Examining Committee and Revising Committee.

During the proceedings, the Court directed the Union of India to disclose whether any delegation order existed under Section 7B of the Act.

On 6 September 2026, the Regional Officer withdrew the orders dated 26 May 2026 and 14 July 2026 and stated that the matter would be reconsidered afresh by the competent authority after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Whether the Regional Officer, CBFC, had jurisdiction to refuse certification of the film under Section 4(2)(v) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, in the absence of a valid delegation under Section 7B(1).

Whether the Examining Committee or Revising Committee could take or communicate the final decision on certification, or whether their role was limited to making recommendations to the Board or a competent delegate.

Whether the impugned orders were legally sustainable when they were issued by the Regional Officer on the basis of Committee recommendations rather than by the Board or a validly authorised delegate.

Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 requires the Board to examine an application for certification and empowers it to sanction unrestricted or restricted exhibition, require excisions or modifications, or refuse certification; no action can be taken without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

Section 7B(1) permits the Central Government, by general or special order, to authorise the Chairperson or another member of the Board to exercise the Board’s certification powers, and actions taken pursuant to such delegation are deemed to be actions of the Board.

Section 7B(2), however, permits a Regional Officer only to issue provisional certificates and does not authorise the officer to refuse certification under Section 4(2)(v).

Under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the Examining Committee and Revising Committee are recommendatory bodies whose function is to examine the film and record their opinions; the final certification decision must be taken by the Board or by a person upon whom the Board’s powers have been validly delegated.

The proviso to Section 4(2), read with the 2024 Rules, also requires a meaningful opportunity of hearing before the competent authority makes the final decision.

The Court held that the orders dated 26 May 2026 and 14 July 2026 were passed before the Central Government’s delegation order dated 29 August 2026.

Consequently, there was no valid delegation authorising either the Chairperson or the Regional Officer to exercise the Board’s power under Section 4.

Section 7B(2) could not cure this defect because its limited scope was confined to the issuance of provisional certificates and did not extend to refusal of certification.

The orders were therefore issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

Independently, the Court found that the Committees were only recommendatory and that the impugned orders did not disclose any independent decision by the Board or a competent delegate; they merely proceeded on the Committees’ recommendations and were signed by the Regional Officer.

The Court also noted the prejudice caused by the delay, particularly because the appellant had applied under the priority scheme and the statutory certification framework prescribed strict timelines.

Since the orders had been withdrawn on 6 September 2026, the Court directed that the application be reconsidered afresh by the Chairperson, who had become the competent authority pursuant to the delegation order dated 29 August 2026.

In view of the respondents’ withdrawal of those orders, the appeal was disposed of without upholding the refusal of certification.

The Chairperson, CBFC, was directed to reconsider the appellant’s certification application afresh after supplying the relevant Committee material, affording an effective hearing, and passing an order in accordance with Section 4 of the 1952 Act, the 29 August 2026 delegation order, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.

The constitution of the Examining Committee was assured by 10 September 2026, and the remaining process was to proceed under Rules 37 and 33(2) of the 2024 Rules.