Samrat Cinematics India, the production company behind the film, has accused the CBFC of undue delay in processing certification for the main feature, teaser, trailer and a promotional song—despite following formal timelines. The original application was filed on 5 June 2025, and by rule, the board was required to complete scrutiny within seven days and schedule a screening within 15 days.
The company then resorted to the priority scheme on 3 July, paying a triple fee as stipulated under Rule 33. A screening was scheduled for 7 July only to be cancelled abruptly at the eleventh hour, without explanation. When producers inquired on 12 July, their application was inexplicably marked “Incomplete” with no clarity on what documentation was missing.
In its petition, Samrat Cinematics criticises this conduct as a breach of their constitutional rights to equality and free expression under Articles 14, 19, 19 and 21. They outline a substantial financial burden: approximately ₹30 crore already spent in advance of an August 1 release, with another ₹10 crore anticipated, noting that the delay has hurt promotional campaigns—necessitating revisions or cancellations.
The petition also highlights that the film’s conceptual basis is the 2017 publication The Monk Who Became Chief Minister by Shantanu Gupta, which the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s Office officially endorsed. Nevertheless, producers allege that the CBFC has made an "erroneous, extraneous and baseless" demand for a No Objection Certificate from the office of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister—something not grounded in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, or the Cinematograph Rules, 2024, and a move they describe as a deliberate tactic to stall certification.
During Tuesday’s hearing, CBFC counsel requested time to retain lawyers, prompting the bench to grant that extension and set the next hearing for 17 July. Justices Dere and Gokhale made a pointed observation: statutory timelines are binding and cannot be ignored.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Ravi Kadam along with advocates Satatya Anand, Nikhil Aradhe, Aakash Sinha, Arjun Aggarwal and Vrinda Bagaria, conveyed to the court that all formal procedures, including priority fees and timely applications, have been complied with. Yet the CBFC has neither scheduled nor explained the cancellations of screenings.
As the dispute escalates, key issues for the court will include whether the CBFC is adhering to its statutory obligations, whether the demand for a political office’s NOC is legally justified, and whether the financial losses and reputational damage claimed by the producers merit judicial relief.