The Bombay High Court has said that judges will watch a film purportedly based on the life of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has been accused of delaying.The court said on Thursday that it would watch Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi before passing an order on a petition filed by the producers of the film. The case will be taken up again on August 25.The film in questionThe producer, Samrat Cinematics India Pvt Ltd, has said the film is inspired by Shantanu Gupta’s book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister: The Definitive Biography of Yogi Adityanath (2017), which has been officially endorsed by the UP Chief Minister’s Office.The purpose of the film is “not only to depict the journey of a leader in public service but also to motivate and inspire the youth of the nation through a narrative grounded in fact and integrity”, the makers have said in their plea.Samrat Cinematics has alleged that it applied for certification of the film on June 5 this year. Under the rules for certification, CBFC was required to scrutinise the application within seven days and refer it for screening before the examining committee within 15 days, it has said.However, after CBFC took no action for more than a month, the petitioner applied again under the “priority scheme”. CBFC then scheduled the screening on July 7, but it was cancelled, according to the plea.Since they received no further correspondence from CBFC, the filmmakers were compelled to approach the High Court to seek a direction to CBFC to decide on the release of the film at the earliest.Story continues below this adAccording to the producer, the delay by the Censor Board in processing the application for the film, its teaser, trailer, and promotional song, is “unreasonable” and “unexplained”.On July 16, a Bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale orally remarked that CBFC was mandated to issue the certification within the stipulated time under the law.The next day, the Board assured HC that the application would be decided within two working days, following which the court disposed of the filmmakers’ writ plea. The film was scheduled for release in theatres on August 1.The second writ pleaOn July 21, CBFC wrote to the filmmakers saying their application for certification had been rejected. This prompted them to file a second writ plea in the court.Story continues below this adOn August 1, the HC observed that CBFC had taken its July 21 decision without viewing the film, and only because it was based on a constitutional post (UP CM) and the Information and Public Relations Department of UP had raised a “serious objection” saying it may “affect the public at large”.CBFC assured the HC that a panel would watch the film before deciding on certification. Thereafter, on August 6, it passed an order refusing to certify the film on the ground that it violated the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition.According to CBFC, the film violated clauses requiring that the medium should remain responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society.Also, the film presented “visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups” and “involving defamation of an individual or body of individuals, or contempt of court”, CBFC said.Story continues below this adThe producer then said it would apply to CBFC’s Revising Committee. The HC had asked the Board to inform the petitioner about any content or dialogues that it found objectionable. The makers were asked to communicate whether they intended to delete or rework parts of the movie.Also Read | Why Maharashtra Govt wants film ‘Khalid Ka Shivaji’ put on holdCBFC raised 29 objections but subsequently dropped eight. The Board objected to the title of the film as being provocative, and flagged certain dialogues.On August 17, CBFC’s revising panel rejected the filmmaker’s application.Seeing for themselvesOn Thursday, CBFC argued that the writ plea was not maintainable. It said the filmmaker could challenge the Revising Committee’s order in an appeal before the HC under the Cinematograph Act.Story continues below this adThe producer argued the Revising Committee’s decision violated the makers’ fundamental rights. It said that CBFC had in an arbitrary manner asked for a No-Objection Certificate from a private individual (Chief Minister Adityanath) before the movie could be cleared for release.The Board was “not the guardian of the private person’s fundamental rights”, the petitioner said.The Bench said that although an alternative remedy to file an appeal was available, it would have to examine whether the present writ petition was maintainable. It pulled up CBFC, saying it had failed to follow the principles of natural justice.The judges then said they would watch the film before passing an order on the plea by the maker, and consider the objections of the Revising Committee.