Censor board under fire for denying certificate to Ajey, decision due in a week

India Today

3 days ago

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to clearly specify the reasons, and particularly the scenes it found objectionable in the film 'Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi' and convey the same to the filmmakers.The bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale said that CBFC's conduct had been "difficult" and that the board was 'creating hurdles and complicating' the matter unnecessarily.advertisementAdvocates Aseem Naphade, Satatya Anand, and Nikhil Aradhe, appearing for the petitioner, Samrat Cinematics India Pvt. Ltd., informed the court that the CBFC had conveyed only this reason after the examining committee reviewed the film: "Reasons for grant of "Refusal" of Certificate to the film are given below. The committee is of the opinion that the film is a biopic of Shri Yogi Adityanath, the incumbent Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh." Also, it was stated that the film violated certain guidelines without specifying the scenes with which the board had problems.Naphade also submitted that a CBFC official had said that they were open to arranging a meeting with the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. If the filmmakers obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Yogi Adityanath, the CBFC would consider certifying the film.At this point, the bench addressed CBFC's advocate, Abhay Khandeparkar, saying, "You are so bogged down by know the fact that the film is based on a known person. How is it that you will not give the grounds on which you are rejecting the certificate? Is there an objection to the film or the dialogues? Why don't you tell them? You are back to square one."
The filmmakers had initially approached the court after the CBFC delayed certification and failed to pass an order. The court later directed the CBFC to view the film and issue a decision. On August 6, after watching the film, the CBFC again refused certification.Khandeparkar, appearing for the CBFC, argued that the film used the same name and speeches, and could not be claimed as fictional. He said the filmmakers described it as a biopic based on a book, but insisted the film's impact was different and that parts of the book were defamatory.However, the court observed that if the film was based on publicly available material, the CBFC could not insist on a NOC from a constitutional authority.The bench suggested the filmmakers could include a disclaimer. "Whatever you find objectionable, tell them so that they can delete them. They are ready to make the changes. This can be worked out. You are simply creating hurdles," said the bench to CBFC.The court directed the filmmakers to file an application before the CBFC's Revisional Committee by August 8. The committee must then inform them of the specific objectionable scenes or dialogues, and any required changes, by August 11. The Revisional Committee is required to decide the matter within a week.- EndsMust Watch