File photo: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Photo: Nk8595
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0
Judgment Intelligence
OtherGurkaran Singh Dhaliwal v. Central Board of Film Certification & Anr.
FAO No. 4033 of 2026 (O&M)
- Court
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Date of Decision
- 7 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Harkesh Manuja
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Cinematograph Act, 1952 — Sections 4, 5B, 7B; Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 — Rules 23(6), 33(2), 37
Final Outcome
Appeal disposed of in view of the withdrawal of the orders of 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026; the Chairperson, CBFC, to decide afresh after supplying the committee records and hearing the appellant (paras 8-11).
Source High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 07.09.2026
Key holdings
- No delegation of Section 4 powers existed before 29.08.2026; the refusals were without competence (para 4.1).
- Section 7B(2) permits a regional officer to issue only provisional certificates, not refusals (para 4.1).
- Examining and Revising Committees are recommendatory; the Board or its delegate decides (para 6).
- Committee reports and records must be supplied before the hearing, save members' names (para 9).
- The Union assured that a new Examining Committee would be constituted by 10.09.2026 (para 10).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant applied on 12.05.2026 under the priority scheme, paying an enhanced fee, for certification of his Punjabi film "Chardikala" (paras 3, 7). Orders of 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026, signed by the Regional Officer on the recommendations of the Examining and Revising Committees, refused a certificate (paras 1, 3). On 25.08.2026 the Court asked whether any delegation under Section 7B existed and impleaded the Union of India (para 3.1). A delegation order to the CBFC Chairperson dated 29.08.2026 was produced, and on 06.09.2026 the Regional Officer withdrew the refusal orders (paras 4-5).
Court's Findings
The Court held that before 29.08.2026 there was no delegation of the Board's power under Section 4 to the Chairperson, much less to a Regional Officer, and Section 7B(2) allows a regional officer to be authorised only to issue provisional certificates, not to refuse a film (para 4.1). The orders were therefore passed by an authority lacking competence (para 4.1). Under the 1952 Act and the 2024 Rules, the Examining and Revising Committees are recommendatory bodies; the decision must be taken by the Board or its valid delegate, and the impugned orders disclosed no such decision, in clear contravention of Section 4 (para 6). The Court regretted that the position emerged only after repeated queries, and deprecated leaving a priority applicant without a competent decision for close to four months despite the strict timelines (para 7). The Chairperson is now the competent authority (para 8).
Legal Principle
A refusal of film certification under Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act must be decided by the Board or its validly authorised delegate; examining and revising committees only recommend, and a regional officer cannot refuse certification without a delegation under Section 7B (paras 4.1, 6).