The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Friday told the Bombay High Court that it will decide the censor certificate application for the film "Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi" in accordance with the Cinematograph Act and Rules by August 6.

This was after the High Court observed that CBFC had rejected the censor certification application by the movie makers only for the reason that the film pertained to a constitutional authority and could affect public order. 

“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 noted.

The CBFC eventually told the Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale that it will decide the plea for Censor certificate by August 6.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Samrat Cinematics, makers of the film inspired by the book 'The Monk Who Became Chief Minister' and purportedly based on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s life. 

The Court heard extensive arguments from both sides in the morning and again at 3 pm.

During the morning session, the judges pulled up the CBFC for rejecting the certification request without viewing the film, despite having earlier assured the Court that it would decide the application within two working days.

“You have not considered the application as per our order and as per the rules. You have not done anything. You have given them the same email that you are not going to process it,” the bench said.

When CBFC argued that it had reviewed the dialogue and script, the court questioned,

“Is it the criteria for rejecting or there has to be application of mind? What’s the objection to seeing the film? You can ask them to make cuts. Before seeing the film how can you reject the application?”

The Court also asked whether any legal provision prohibits certification of a film about a constitutional authority.

“What is the law? Is there any provision that says that a film or teaser cannot be made on a constitutional authority? If it’s a person, I can understand. There is in fact a movie on the CM. We just want to know whether there is a provision that you cannot certify a film based on a person holding constitutional authority, and whether you need to seek permission of a constitutional authority?”

The Court said that the rejection for a censor certificate must “show application of mind.”

In the afternoon session, CBFC sought a week’s time to decide the application, citing the need to convene members from Mumbai and Chennai.

However, the Bench was not impressed.

"Normally how much time do you take? Why didn’t you do it earlier? 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 Court said.

When CBFC counsel insisted for at least a week for the process, the bench retorted,

“Today if you say, they can take a flight.”

Eventually, CBFC assured the Court that it would screen the film on or before August 6.

The Court then directed that the decision “should be strictly based on the Act and rules” and posted the matter for compliance on August 7.

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.

[Read Live Coverage]