M/S. Sunrise Entertainments vs. The Central Board Of Film Certification (Cbfc)

Held

The Court held that the action of Respondent No. 1 in withholding the CBFC Certificate solely on the ground of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3823 of 2026, in the absence of any interim order or prohibitory direction from a competent court, was illegal and arbitrary. The Court noted that Writ Petition No. 3823 of 2026 was at the admission stage, and no interim order had been issued restraining the CBFC from processing the certification. The Court further held that the objections raised by Respondent No. 2 were based on disputed questions of fact concerning alleged prior engagement and expenditure, which fall within the domain of a civil court and not the CBFC. The Court reasoned that the CBFC's function is to certify films based on their content as per the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its Rules, and it is not its role to adjudicate private commercial disputes. The Court found that the Petitioner had provided cogent evidence of its bona fide claim as the producer and owner of the film. The Court also found that the Petitioner's representation dated 13.05.2026 was not considered on merits, and the oral direction to approach the court amounted to non-application of mind. Consequently, the Court directed Respondent No. 1 to forthwith process the application and release the CBFC Certificate in favour of the Petitioner, uninfluenced by the pendency of the other writ petition.

Facts

M/s. Sunrise Entertainments (Petitioner), a film production firm, sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) (Respondent No. 1) to release a CBFC Certificate for its feature film 'Raam Bhajarang'. The Petitioner claimed to be the sole producer and owner of the film, having completed production and post-production. The CBFC had withheld the certificate, allegedly due to claims made by M/s. Star Film Factory (Respondent No. 2) and the pendency of a writ petition filed by Respondent No. 2 against the CBFC and others. The Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 was not a party to the film's production, that the claims were false and civil in nature, and that there was no interim order restraining the CBFC from issuing the certificate. The Petitioner had made a representation to the CBFC on 13.05.2026, which was not considered on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 1 in withholding the CBFC Certificate for the feature film 'Raam Bhajarang' solely on the ground of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3823 of 2026, in the absence of any prohibitory order, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional? (Provision: Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 2. Whether Respondent No. 1, as a statutory certifying authority, is empowered to adjudicate upon disputed civil or commercial claims between rival claimants to a film or its title, rather than focusing on the content of the film as per the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its Rules? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioner argued that withholding the certificate due to the pendency of another writ petition, without any specific interim order, is unsustainable in law and amounts to arbitrary inaction. They emphasized that they were not a party to the other writ petition and that the claims made by Respondent No. 2 were false, baseless, and concerned personal civil disputes not relevant to the CBFC's function. - They contended that Respondent No. 1's role is limited to certifying the film's content based on prescribed parameters, not to resolve inter se civil disputes between parties. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment does not record specific arguments made by Respondent No. 1 (CBFC) or Respondent No. 2 (M/s. Star Film Factory).