CBFC Cannot Withhold Film Certification Merely Because Civil Dispute Is Pending Without Stay Order: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to release the Certificate for "Raam Bhajarang" film, observing that the authority cannot withhold the certification solely because a third party has filed a writ petition claiming rights over the film in the absence of any interim order. 

The Court observed that the CBFC's statutory function is confined to certifying films under the Cinematograph Act and not adjudicating private commercial disputes between rival claimants.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed:

"It is by now well-settled that a statutory authority is bound to exercise the powers and discharge the functions vested in it under the statute in accordance with law, and cannot abdicate its statutory duty merely because a third party has raised a grievance before another forum, particularly where such third party has not obtained any order of stay or injunction restraining the authority from discharging its functions. Mere pendency of litigation does not operate as an embargo upon a statutory authority from performing its statutory duty, and any such self-imposed restraint, in the absence of a specific prohibitory order, amounts to abdication of statutory function and constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record."

The Court further held:

"Respondent No.1, under the scheme of the Cinematograph Act, 1952... is concerned with the certification of a film with reference to its content... and it is not the function of Respondent No.1 to adjudicate upon inter se civil or commercial disputes between rival claimants to a film or its title. To permit Respondent No.1 to withhold certification on the basis of unproved and unadjudicated allegations of a third party... would be to allow a statutory authority to be used as an instrument of pressure in what is essentially a private commercial dispute."

The petitioner, M/s Sunrise Entertainments, approached the High Court alleging that the CBFC had failed to process its application for certification of its feature film "Raam Bhajarang" despite there being no legal restraint on certification. The production house contended that it had completed production after investing substantial amounts and possessed all agreements with the director, artists and technicians, besides holding the registered title of the film.

According to the petitioner, the CBFC kept the certification process on hold solely because another producer had filed W.P. No. 3823 of 2026 claiming certain rights over the film and seeking a direction that the censor certificate should not be issued. The petitioner pointed out that it was not even impleaded as a party to that writ petition and that no interim stay or injunction had been granted by the High Court restraining the CBFC from processing the certification application.

The petitioner further argued that the rival producer's allegations were directed primarily against the film's director and involved disputed contractual claims which could only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. Such disputes, it submitted, could not legally justify the CBFC withholding certification. It also complained that despite submitting a detailed representation on May 13, 2026, the CBFC neither passed any order nor considered the representation on merits, instead orally advising the petitioner to obtain orders from the High Court.

Noting that the respondents had not filed any counter affidavit, the High Court found the petitioner's assertions to have gone unrebutted. The Court observed that the petitioner was admittedly not a party to the pending writ petition and that no interim order had ever been passed restraining the CBFC from processing or issuing certification in respect of the film. It held that a person who is not a party to pending proceedings cannot be made to suffer adverse consequences merely because such proceedings are pending.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had produced documentary material including its Telugu Film Chamber of Commerce registration, title registration and renewal certificates, agreements with the director, artists and technicians, and engagement of Prasad Film Laboratories for post-production, all of which prima facie supported its claim of being the producer and owner of the film.

Criticising the CBFC's conduct, the Court held that a statutory authority cannot refuse to decide a representation and simply direct an applicant to approach the Court. Such conduct, it observed, amounts to non-application of mind and arbitrary inaction.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the CBFC to forthwith process the petitioner's certification application and issue the CBFC certificate for the feature film "Raam Bhajarang" strictly in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the applicable Rules and Guidelines, uninfluenced by the pendency of W.P. No. 3823 of 2026.

Case Title: M/s Sunrise Entertainments v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.

Case No.: W.P. No. 17823 of 2026

Appearance: Raja Sripathi Rao, Senior Counsel, assisted by Vishal Kumar Jain, for the petitioner; N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order