The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that orders refusing certification to the Punjabi film "Chardikala" were passed by an authority lacking competence to do so, after it emerged that no valid delegation of the Central Board of Film Certification's statutory powers existed in favour of the Regional Officer or even the Chairperson on the dates the refusal orders were issued. [2026 LL (PH) 321]

Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "it is made clear that before passing of any order on the application submitted by the appellant, opportunity of hearing be afforded by the competent authority in terms of the proviso to Section 4(2) of the 1952 Act, read with the order dated 29.08.2026 passed under Section 7B of the said Act by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Before affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the report and the relevant records before the Examining Committee or Revising Committee (as the case may be) be supplied to the appellant, save for the names of the members of the Committee, disclosure whereof stands protected under sub-rule (6) of Rule 23 of the 2024 Rules, so that he may represent before the authorities in an appropriate manner."

The appellant had applied on 12.05.2026, under CBFC's priority scheme with enhanced fee, for certification of his Punjabi film "Chardikala" under Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The Examining Committee's recommendation led to an order dated 26.05.2026, signed by the Regional Officer, refusing certification on the ground that the film had a "highly social-political sensitive theme, threaten to law and order and glorification of assassin," which "may lead to breaking of societal norms."

On appeal, the Revising Committee likewise recommended refusal, and a further order dated 14.07.2026, again signed by the Regional Officer, who refused certification citing violation of Articles 2(xiii), (xiv), (xv) and (xvii) of the certification guidelines under Section 5B(2) of the Act.

Since Section 4 of the 1952 Act vests the power to grant or refuse certification in the Board itself, and since neither impugned order disclosed any decision by the Board, the Court  by order dated 25.08.2026 called upon the CBFC to disclose whether the Central Government had, under Section 7B of the Act, delegated the Board's powers to the Chairperson or any other authority, and impleaded the Union of India (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) as a party to explain the position.

In response, an order dated 29.08.2026 issued by the Ministry was placed on record, showing that it was only with effect from that date that the Central Government, exercising powers under Section 7B, delegated the Board's powers under Part II of the Act — including Section 4 — to the Chairperson, CBFC.

The Court held that this delegation order conclusively established that, on 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026 — the dates the impugned refusal orders were passed — no delegation existed in favour of even the Chairperson, let alone the Regional Officer. It further clarified that Section 7B(2) of the Act, which does permit the Central Government to authorise a Regional Officer, is confined to the limited purpose of issuing provisional certificates, and does not extend to refusing certification under Section 4(2)(v).

The Court held, "the impugned orders, therefore, came to be passed by an authority lacking the competence to do so."

It also clarified the scheme of the Act and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, noting that neither the Examining Committee nor the Revising Committee is itself competent to pass a final order, both are merely recommendatory bodies whose opinions must be acted upon by the Board or its validly delegated authority, which had not occurred here.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Regional Officer, CBFC, by order dated 06.09.2026, withdrew both impugned orders dated 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026, "in compliance with the directions of the competent authority," and directed that the matter be considered afresh with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

The Court expressed disapproval at the manner in which the jurisdictional defect came to light only after repeated judicial queries, observing, "Had the appellant not been driven to this Court, an order suffering from a fundamental want of jurisdiction would have continued to operate against him."

It noted that the appellant, having applied under the priority (enhanced fee) scheme, had been left without a decision by a competent authority for nearly four months, contrary to the strict timelines prescribed under the 1952 Act and the 2024 Rules, causing commercial prejudice given the nature of film releases, and held that "such delay is to be deprecated."

With the Chairperson, CBFC now validly empowered under the 29.08.2026 delegation order to decide the appellant's application, the Court directed that, before passing any order, the competent authority must afford the appellant an opportunity of hearing under the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act, read with the delegation order.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant must be supplied the Examining/Revising Committee's report and relevant records, except the names of Committee members (protected under Rule 23(6) of the 2024 Rules);

The Additional Solicitor General assured the Court that a fresh Examining Committee for the film would be constituted by 10.09.2026, with the certification process thereafter proceeding under Rule 37 read with Rule 33(2) of the 2024 Rules.

In view of the withdrawal of the impugned orders, the appeal was disposed of in these terms, with the certification application to be reconsidered afresh by the now-competent Chairperson, CBFC, after due hearing.

Case Title: Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal v. Central Board of Film Certification and another

Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, Mr Amit Jhanjhi with Ms. Sukriti Rai, Advocate

Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shereyansi Verma, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent Nos.1& 2/CBFC.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI for respondent No.3.

Click here to read order