Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), has informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the orders dated May 26, 2026, passed by the Examining Committee, and July 14, 2026, passed by the Revising Committee in respect of the Punjabi film titled “Chardi Kala” have been withdrawn.The order further states that the matter shall be considered afresh by the competent authority after affording the appellant an adequate opportunity of hearing.The letter dated September 6, 2026, issued by the Regional Officer withdrawing the previous orders, was placed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court during the hearing of an appeal filed by the proprietor of M/s Mad4 Films.The appellant had challenged the orders of the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee refusing certification to the Punjabi feature film “Chardi Kala”. In both orders, the committees had refused to grant certification to the film on the ground that, being based on a highly sensitive social and political theme, it threatened law and order and that the glorification of assassins could lead to a breakdown of societal norms.The High 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.“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.“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.“The impugned orders, therefore, came to be passed by an authority lacking the competence to do so.”The orders were thus passed in clear contravention of Section 4 of the 1952 Act.The appellant, having applied on May 12, 2026, under the priority scheme, had been left without a decision by a competent authority for close to four months. Such delay, the court observed, was to be deprecated.The court further observed that the power under Section 4 now stands delegated to the Chairperson, Central Board of Film Certification. The Chairperson is, therefore, now the competent authority to decide the appellant’s appeal.Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, also assured the court that the constitution of the Examining Committee for the purpose of examining the Punjabi film would be done and that the rest of the process would be carried out in terms of Rule 37 read with the relevant rules.The Bench said that, accordingly, in view of the withdrawal of the impugned orders, the appeal was disposed of in the above terms.Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the CBFC before the High Court, while Advocate Harlove Singh Rajput appeared on behalf of the appellant.