Section 4 Cinematograph Act | Orders Refusing Chardikala Film Certification Passed By Regional Officer Without Statutory Delegation Are Coram Non Judice: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The Examining Committee or the Revising Committee is not an authority competent to pass a final order upon an application for certification; these Committees are recommendatory bodies." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated 07.09.2026, has held that an order refusing the certification of a film must be passed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) or its validly delegated authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

A bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that the Regional Officer lacks the inherent jurisdiction to pass final refusal orders under Section 4 of the Act unless specifically empowered by the Central Government via a notification under Section 7B.

The dispute arose when the petitioner, Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal, applied for the certification of his Punjabi film "Chardikala." The application was rejected by the Regional Officer of the CBFC on 26.05.2026 and 14.07.2026, following recommendations from the Examining and Revising Committees. The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the Regional Officer exceeded his statutory authority.

Court Examines Delegation of Powers

The primary question before the court was whether the Regional Officer possessed the legal competence to pass final orders refusing a film's certification under Section 4 of the 1952 Act. The court was further tasked with determining the validity of actions taken by recommendatory bodies like the Examining and Revising Committees in the absence of a formal delegation order from the Central Government.

Regional Officer Lacked Jurisdiction

Upon reviewing the statutory scheme, the court noted that Section 4 explicitly vests the power of certification in the Board. While Section 7B allows the Central Government to delegate such powers to the Chairperson or other members, the court discovered that no such delegation existed for the Regional Officer at the time the impugned orders were passed. The court held that the Regional Officer's attempt to exercise such powers was a nullity.

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

The court further clarified that Section 7B(2) permits the delegation of powers to a Regional Officer only for the limited purpose of issuing provisional certificates, not for refusing the public exhibition of a film under Section 4(2)(v). The court expressed strong disapproval of the fact that the petitioner was forced to approach the judiciary to rectify a fundamental jurisdictional error, leading to commercial prejudice through avoidable delays.

Committees Are Merely Recommendatory

The bench emphasized that the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee are strictly recommendatory bodies under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. Their function is limited to examining a film and recording an opinion, while the decision-making authority must remain with the Board or a competent delegate. Issuing final refusal orders based solely on committee reports without Board intervention violates the statutory mandate.

"The Examining Committee or the Revising Committee is not an authority competent to pass a final order upon an application for certification."

In light of the fact that the CBFC had withdrawn the impugned orders on 06.09.2026, the High Court directed the competent authority—now the Chairperson, following a 29.08.2026 notification—to consider the matter afresh. The court mandated that the petitioner be provided with the committee reports and records, excluding member names, to ensure the right to a fair hearing under the proviso to Section 4(2) is meaningfully exercised.

Date of Decision: 07 September 2026