Delhi HC Declines to Entertain PIL Against CBFC Certification for The Taj Story, Says ‘Are We Super Censor Board?’

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) certificate granted to the feature film The Taj Story, starring Paresh Rawal.

Notably, The Taj Story is scheduled for nationwide release on October 31, 2025.

The petitions were filed by lawyers Chetna Gautam and Shakeel Abbas, who contended that the film attempts to spread fabricated narratives and has the potential to create communal disharmony.

During the hearing, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the reliefs sought.

When the petitioners urged that a direction be issued to the CBFC to change the disclaimer, the Bench remarked, “Are we a super censor board?” Justice Gedela added, “Just because you say so, should we pass an order?”

Observing that historians often hold divergent views, the Bench said that, "These are the issues which cannot be decided by us.  'What one believes to be correct history may not be accepted by others. What standards are available to the Court to decide this?” the Chief Justice asked.

After a brief hearing, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petitions. The Court granted them liberty to approach the Central Government by invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

In its order, the Court recorded: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are passing a common order in both cases. By way of petitions instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance raised pertains to the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act to the feature film titled ‘The Taj Story’.

On being pointed out, it is noted that the Cinematograph Act does not contain any provision enabling review of the Board’s decisions. Therefore, the first prayer made in the petitions cannot be granted. Learned counsel have further submitted that the petitions are not directed against the exhibition of the film. The only prayer is that the Board may direct the producer of the film to insert a disclaimer stating that the film is not a depiction of historical facts.

Be that as it may, having regard to Section 6 of the Act, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy provided therein. At this juncture, the petitioner appearing in person seeks permission to withdraw the writ petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed as not pressed, with liberty as prayed for."

The Court also deleted the actor from the array of parties, clarifying that if any revision petition is preferred, it shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, and that nothing in the order should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked whether any CBFC certification is reviewable under the Act, noting that there is no provision for review, and queried what statutory remedy the petitioners had invoked. He further pointed out that they could have pursued the revisional remedy before the Central Government.

Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit submitted that no representation had been made.

Hearing this, the Court remarked, “We are not sitting here for you to do your research. Proper research should precede filing. If you had a grievance, you should have taken a revisional petition before the Central Government. When you come to court, your arguments should be laced with law.

The petitioners before the High Court had sought directions to the CBFC to review the certification or impose cuts to protect communal harmony.

Case Title: Chetna Gautam v. The Union of India & Ors

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Hearing Date: 30 October 2025