The Bombay High Court on Monday cleared the 'Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi' for release without any edits [Samrat Cinematics v CBFC].
The movie, inspired by the book 'The Monk Who Became Chief Minister' is said to be based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
After watching the film, a bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale, observed that there was nothing objectionable in the movie requiring re-editing.
“We have seen the movie in its context, and we don't see that anything needs to be re-edited. We have paused at every point you flagged. We have noted everything. We don't find anything objectionable,” the Court said.
Hence, it set aside the orders passed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which had recommended cuts and edits to the movie.
The CBFC had initially raised 29 objections to the film. On appeal, the a Revising Committee of CBFC struck down 8 of those objections on August 17 but still denied certification to the film.
Following this, the Court decided to watch the movie on August 22. After viewing the film, the Court was of the opinion that there was nothing in the movie requiring changes.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ram Apte, arguing for CBFC, insisted that the film contains obscenity and is potentially defamatory towards Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
However, when asked by the court, whether he had watched the film, Apte admitted he had not and it was indeed the CBFC's opinion that certain scenes were objectionable.
The Court, visibly unconvinced, asked Apte to specify how the film violated the Cinematograph Act or the certification guidelines.
While Apte cited grounds such as public order, obscenity and denigration of women, the Court rejected all of it.
“There is no obscenity. Absolutely nothing. Even considering today’s OTT standards, this is a very mild version,” the Court remarked.
Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, representing producer Samrat Cinematics, argued that the CBFC had exceeded its jurisdiction by demanding a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a private individual - in this case, Yogi Adityanath - as a precondition for certification.
“They’re acting like moral guardians. The CBFC has a limited mandate. There is no legal bar on portraying a real individual unless it is defamatory,” Kadam argued.
While the filmmakers had already included a three liner disclaimer stating the film is fictional and inspired by real events, the Court suggested that the CBFC may ask for a slightly wider disclaimer.
“There can be one word added ‘creative freedom’. This is alright. This covers everything,” the Court said, referring to the disclaimer already present in the film.
When Apte cited the K Ganeshan v Film Certification Appellate Tribunal judgment of the Madras High Court wherin an injunction was granted, the Court noted that in that case, the family of the individual portrayed had come forward raising objections.
“Here, the person’s family has not objected. If a person believes their right to privacy is affected, they can approach the court. That is not the CBFC’s role,” the Court clarified.
Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam with advocates Aseem Naphade, Satatya Anand and Nikhil Aradhe appeared for Samrat Cinematics.
Senior Advocate Ram Apte appeared for CBFC.