That while searching online https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/search-film.

php

Section 5A of the Act, it is the statutory duty of the Board to examine the film
subjectively and thereafter grant certification for its exhibition, but the respondents
have failed to perform their statutory duty honestly and bonafidely.
In the present case, the Examining Committee of the Board had seen the film along with
the experts and only after all the members of the Committee as also the two experts
gave positive views on the screening of the film, thereafter only the certificate was
granted. Therefore, since the expert body has already found that the aforesaid film
could be screened all over the country, we find the opinion of the High Level committee
for deletion of some of the scenes/words from the film amounted to exercising power
of pre- censorship, which power is not available either to any high-level expert
committee of the State or to the State Government. It appears that the State
Government through the High Level Committee sought to sit over and override the
decision of the Board by proposing deletion of some portion of the film, which power is
not vested at all with the State.

ction 5A of the Act reads as under:

"5A. Certification of films (1) If, after examining a film or having it examined in the
prescribed manner, the Board considers that-
(a) the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or as the case may be, for
unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of the nature mentioned in the
proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 4, it shall grant to the person applying
for a certificate in respect of the film a "U" certificate or, as the case may be, a "UA"
certificate; or
(b) the film is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition but is suitable for public
exhibition restricted to adults or, as the case may be, is suitable for public exhibition
restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons, it shall grant to the
person applying for a certificate in respect of the film an "A" certificate or as the case
may be a "S" certificate; and cause the film to be so marked in the prescribed manner;
Provided that the applicant for the certificate, any distributor or exhibitor or any other
person to whom the rights in the film have passed shall not be liable for punishment
under any law relating to obscenity in respect of any matter contained in the film for
which certificate has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b).

(2) A certificate granted or an order refusing to grant a certificate in respect of any film
shall be published in the Gazette of India.

(3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a certificate granted by the
Board under this section shall be valid throughout India for a period of ten years."

35. The contention of learned Senior Counsel was that reading of Section 5A r/w 5B puts
statutory restriction on the Board not to grant certification, when it is not disputed that the
Swamys and Sadhus have high respect in the Hindu society. The respondents, thus,
deserve to be prohibited from issuing certification.

36. The contention of learned Senior Counsel, on the face of it is, misconceived. Section
5B of the Act stipulates that the certification cannot be granted, if the film or any part of
it, is against the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India. The security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves
defamation or contempt of Court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. The
petitioner in the affidavit has not alleged any such allegations. The allegations of
religious sentiments, being hurt, are also vague and not specific. The writ petition has
been filed by the Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, and not
individuals, giving details as to how and in what respect their religious feelings were hurt.
The vague allegations cannot be a ground to restrain an authority to perform its statutory
functions.

 My client states that reading of Section 5A r/w 5B of ‘The Cinematograph

Act’ and applicable rules as per ‘The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 2024
puts statutory restriction on the Film Certification Board not to grant certification,
when it is not disputed that the Ulama, Maulana and Islamic Spiritual Leaders
have high respect in the Muslim society. The film makers thus deserve to be
prohibited from public viewing in theatre or other platforms of mass
communications including social media from issuing certification for release
unless the objectionable, offensive, derogatory remarks on pious verse of Holy
Quran, Islam and muslim community is not deleted permanently.
The Government of India, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting New Delhi

2. Central Board of Film Certification, Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600

3. Secretary to Government, Home Department

5. The contention of learned Senior Counsel was that reading of Section 5A r/w 5B puts
statutory restriction on the Board not to grant certification, when it is not disputed that the
Swamys and Sadhus have high respect in the Hindu society. The respondents, thus,
deserve to be prohibited from issuing certification.

36. The contention of learned Senior Counsel, on the face of it is, misconceived. Section
5B of the Act stipulates that the certification cannot be granted, if the film or any part of
it, is against the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India. The security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves
defamation or contempt of Court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. The
petitioner in the affidavit has not alleged any such allegations. The allegations of
religious sentiments, being hurt, are also vague and not specific. The writ petition has
been filed by the Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, and not
individuals, giving details as to how and in what respect their religious feelings were hurt.
The vague allegations cannot be a ground to restrain an authority to perform its statutory
functions.

37. In case any offence under Section 295A of IPC is committed, by hurting sentiments
of any religious bodies, the remedy with the person aggrieved is to invoke criminal
jurisdiction, by making out a fool proof case and showing motive.