The CBFC Regional Officer informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that orders passed by the Examining and Revising Committees denying certification to Chardikala have been withdrawn.
A letter dated September 6, 2026 withdrawing the refusal orders was submitted before the High Court during the hearing of an appeal by M/s Mad4 Films.
The High Court disposed of the appeal after recording that the film will be considered afresh by the competent authority with an adequate hearing for the appellant.
CBFC Withdraws Orders Denying Certification To Punjabi Film Chardikala
The Bench noted that the previous refusal orders were passed in contravention of Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 by an authority lacking competence.
Summary
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has withdrawn the two orders that denied certification to the Punjabi film Chardikala. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of the appeal after taking that withdrawal on record, The Tribune reported.
During proceedings on a plea by the proprietor of M/s Mad4 Films, the Regional Officer, CBFC, submitted a letter dated September 6, 2026. The communication confirmed that the authorities rescinded the May 26, 2026 Examining Committee ruling and the July 14, 2026 Revising Committee rejection regarding the film.
The competent authority will re-evaluate the case after granting the filmmaker a fair hearing. Following the retraction of the contested directives, the Bench closed the petition accordingly.
Certification refusal grounds
The proprietor of M/s Mad4 Films had moved the High Court against the refusal to certify the Punjabi feature film. The appeal challenged the decisions of both the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee.
The panels cited public order risks. Both committees rejected the film because its volatile political and social subject matter posed a security hazard. They determined that praising assassins risked destabilising established societal norms.
The Examining Committee issued its rejection on May 26, 2026, before the Revising Committee upheld the denial on July 14, 2026. Both panels maintained that the movie focused on an intensely delicate socio-political subject.
Court on competence
The Bench then examined who had the legal authority to pass such orders under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The court observed: “A perusal thereof clearly shows that it is only w.e.f. August 29, 2026, that the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 7B of the Act, has directed that the powers, authority and jurisdiction exercisable by the Board in relation to certification of films under Part II, including the power under Section 4, shall be exercisable by the Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification.”
Advertisement
It added: “Consequently, before August 29, 2026, there was no order of delegation in favour of the Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification, much less in favour of the Regional Officer. However, the orders dated May 26 and July 14, 2026, were passed by the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification.”
The court further observed: “It is thus evident that on the dates on which the orders came to be passed, neither had the Central Government issued any direction under Section 7B(1) of the 1952 Act enabling the exercise of the Board’s powers by any other authority, nor does Section 7B(2) thereof avail the respondents, inasmuch as the said provision permits the Central Government to authorise a Regional Officer only for the limited purpose of issuing provisional certificates and not for refusing to sanction a film for public exhibition under Section 4(2)(v) of the 1952 Act.”
It concluded: “The impugned orders, therefore, came to be passed by an authority lacking the competence to do so.”
Advertisement
The directives breached Section 4 of the 1952 Act. Although the applicant sought clearance on May 12, 2026 under the priority scheme, no authorised body resolved the matter for nearly four months. The Bench said such prolonged inaction deserved deprecation.
The Bench pointed out that statutory powers under Section 4 currently rest with the CBFC Chairperson. That office holds the official mandate to rule on the filmmaker's petition.
Fresh examination will now follow.
Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, told the court that the Examining Committee for the Punjabi film would be constituted. He also assured the Bench that the rest of the process would be carried out in terms of Rule 37 read with the relevant rules.
About Chardikala
Directed by Amarjit Singh Saron, Chardikala (also known as Zakhma Toh Chardikala Tak) is a Punjabi biographical historical drama, starring Ammy Virk, Roopi Gill and Himmat Sandhu, among others.
Advertisement
It was screened at the 79th Cannes Film Festival in May 2026.
Published At: