Art vs. Authority: The CBFC's Censorial Instinct

Barely a few months into 2026, comes another significant film certification contention. At the moment, it’s surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ starring Vijay Thalapathy in what is being touted as his last silver screen appearance.

The movie, which was scheduled to release on January 9, 2026, was initially cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with its communication to the producers of the movie dated December 22, 2025, subject to the makers noting certain exclusions. A revised version incorporating the exclusions was submitted by the makers, and it was communicated to the makers on December 29, 2025, that CBFC has decided to issue a U/A certificate. However, subsequently the regional officer of CBFC claimed that the CBFC chairman had referred the movie to a Revising Committee. This was followed with a plea by KVN Productions LLP in the Madras High Court. Through an order dated January 9, 2025, a single judge bench of the Madras High Court directed the CBFC to issue a U/A certificate to the movie, but shortly thereafter, the said order’s execution was stayed by the decision of a division bench of Madras High Court. Further on the 15^th of January 2026, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the stay. As things stand, Jana Nayagan is now facing an indefinite delay with no clear release date. The saga has brought about widespread criticism of the CBFC from people within the industry and outside of it.

It is said that a film is born thrice, in writing, shooting, and editing. However, in India, CBFC insists on delivering a fourth version, – one of its own, and often unwelcome! In July of 2025,  James Gunn’s Superman flew onto the big screens across the world, yet, in India it was met with an unrelenting CBFC that censored a 33- second kiss between the leads for being too ‘sensual’. The public outrage at the absurdity of it all, hardly sounds new; as it rather exposes a bigger fault line with the functioning of the board. Similarly in the recent past, the Kerala High Court summoned CBFC for blocking the release of ‘Janaki Vs. State’. This delay stemmed from the board’s objection to the use of the name “Janaki” (another name for Goddess Sita) in the title of the movie that deals with a woman’s fight against the State on account of assault. This reveals a troubling pattern, in which the Board appears to be increasingly invested in pandering to the pro-establishment sentiments, as also seen in the case of Aamir Khan’s Sitaare Zameen Par, wherein it ordered the makers to add a quote by the Prime Minister in the opening credits.

The Mandate & The Practice:

The CBFC draws its power from the Cinematograph Act 1952 (hereinafter; the “Act”). Under the Act, the purpose of the statutory board is to certify movies for public exhibition. However, the history of film certification in India lies in its colonial origins. The legacy of serving the interests of a ruling dispensation tenaciously through censorship was regularly used by the British in a pre-independent India. Often conveniently framing the reasons to do so around ‘audience protection’ and prevention of ‘immoral content.’ It appears that, nearly eight decades since independence, the pursuit of striking a balance between art and authority still remains a delicate exercise.

Section 4 of the Act provides that once a film is submitted, the CBFC reviews it, through a ‘Examining Committee’ and assigns it to one of three categories: U (for universal viewing), UA (requiring parental guidance for viewers under 18), or A (restricted to adults). A fourth category, S, exists for films meant for specialized professional groups or class of persons. Along with the certification, sub-section 2(iv) also empowers it to suggest cuts or modifications before granting the said certification. In certain cases, the chairperson of the CBFC may also refer it to a ‘Revising Committee’ who shall review a movie in order to provide their recommendation on the category of certification to be assigned to it. 

The guiding principles for the same, under Section 5B are rooted in the same values upheld by the exception to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Meaning, a film cannot be certified if, in the Board’s opinion, it undermines the sovereignty and integrity of India, threatens security, friendly relations with foreign States, disturbs public order, offends decency or morality, or involves defamation, contempt of court, or incitement to an offence.

Into the bargain, there is also the scope of Central Government’s further guidelines under section 5B (2) discouraging glorification of violence or promotion of drug use to prohibition of the derogatory portrayal of women, children, and marginalized groups. These guidelines carry the risk of extending to broad and often subjective notions of vulgarity and obscenity.

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, made huge strides in curbing piracy and modernizing age-based certification but the censorship problem still looms large. One of the older changes also, like the abolishment of Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021, showed more peril than promise in this regard. The dissolution of an expedient appellate forum concentrated greater power in the CBFC, leaving filmmakers with only slower and costlier recourse to the courts.

The Problem of Selective Morality:

It is essential to understand that art’s foremost role, is to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. At the same time, every discomfort is not a danger, but the persistent concern with CBFC’s action is its seemingly blatant selective morality. Films that intend to challenge existing power structures through its content, often end up in the editorial purgatory. For reasons as vague as ‘too bold’ or ‘offensive’ etc, movies like ‘Udta Punjab’ (Phantom Films v. CBFC, 2016) or ‘Lipstick under my Burkha’ (Sudhir Bhai Mishra v. CBFC, 2017) and their likes, suffer at the hands of the arbiter of permissible cinema.

Likewise, a few months ago, Ananth Mahadevan’s caste conscious movie, ‘Phule’ based on Jyotiba Phule’s life, faced resistance from the CBFC following objections from the ‘brahmin community’ regarding the portrayal of Brahmins in negative light. The Board’s directive included removal of certain ‘sensitive’ terms like ‘Mahar’, ‘Mang’, ‘Peshvai’, and ‘Manu’s system of caste’. Similarly in ‘Dhadak 2’, a Hindi remake of the Tamil anti-caste movie, ‘Pariyerum Perumal’, a similar pattern of cuts followed to avoid provocative imagery. Notably, the Tamil version, eight years older than its Hindi remake, had not faced any significant modifications, whereas the remake underwent 16 alterations.

Even International releases like Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ or back home, Shahana Goswami starrer ‘Santosh’ face a worse fate or die a silent death due to the indirect bureaucratic intervention keeping them out of the theatres using the same crutch of vague guidelines under the aforementioned section 5B of the Act.

By contrast, movies including derogatory songs, dance numbers, language and explicit violence hardly face any difficulty in securing certification. Movies like the blockbuster ‘Animal’ or more recently, the latest ‘Housefull’ sequel are a testament to the relaxation in certification despite the political discourse around their extremely graphic representation of gendered themes. Soon after, for the Diljit Dosanjh starrer ‘Punjab ’95’, that covered state-violence through the portrayal of the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, the Board demanded 127 cuts before the domestic release.

Tasked with certifying films, the CBFC has instead turned itself into a gatekeeper of society. This attitude is encouraging a far disturbing sense of censorship in makers, because the economic implications of delay or stalling of a release makes it even harder to push back the self-censorship, something which was also highlighted by Jana Nayagan’s makers in the Madras High Court. In 2022, after having travelled the film festivals across the world, Arun Karthick’s poignant portrayal of a Muslim Salesperson in Coimbatore where Hindutva is on rise, ‘Nasir’ was picked up by Sony Liv for streaming. However, before the release the streamer officials voluntarily submitted the movie to CBFC, even though the law does not apply to OTT content yet. Since then, the movie has not been a part of the platform’s library, giving us the reason to believe that, eventually the process does become the punishment.

Conclusion:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," often wrongly attributed to Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall summarizing the philosopher’s view, is now more relevant than ever. For decades, the CBFC board has wielded power over the contents of the film by law, by tactics, or by gimmicks. This power over the years, has taken various forms such as a delay, ban or limited exhibition which may make even the bravest of producers wary of deploying funds to movies that could meet the scrutiny of CBFC.

Sometime in the year 2015, the Aamir Khan starrer PK, that took a critical look at religious practices, was under fire from the targeted outrage by certain fundamentalist groups across the country. They protested screenings and demanded a ban on the ground of a litany of hurt sentiments. Even the board, then headed by Leela Samson, was very verbal about the pressure from the government in certification of the movie. Even so, in the case of the next release, ‘MSG – 2’ starring a convicted murderer and rapist, Dera Sacha Sauda chief Saint Dr. Ram Rahim Singh, the government supposedly arm twisted the Board into clearing his self-serving movie for theatres, which was followed by Leela Samson’s resignation as the chairperson along with a few other board members on account of interference, coercion and corruption within the organization. While some may argue that if Aamir Khan’s creative endeavour was respected with zero cuts subsequently, it is only befitting that MSG was treated fairly too in the same democracy, in the spirit of freedom of speech.

A decade later, not much has changed. Having said that, few of the major wins for artistic freedom have come from judicial interventions. Be it the Court’s balancing act over the portrayal of brutality in the case of  ‘Bandit Queen (Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh)’, or the Bombay High Court’s reminder to CBFC to ‘certify’ not ‘censor’ in the Udta Punjab case or of late the Supreme Court’s decision in the ‘Thug Life’ controversy, nipping vigilante censorship in the bud.

Several committees, in the course of time have tried to bring reform in the organization, pointing out problematic features of censorship. These committees often have recommended the board to distance itself from a fixed ideological and moral compass. Despite these efforts, there has been no marked shift in its functioning and the changes have been ineffective. The Board needs major reform beginning in its structural level. Instead of issuance of a banned list of cuss words, to protect culture, CBFC needs to stick to its work of ‘certifying’ as envisaged by the Act. It should employ objective and transparent methods in certification, to remove any sense of conflict of interest or bias. Gradually, this could be achieved by making orders public, adherence to strict timelines depending on the release cycle, and clear decision making.

While the CBFC has evolved over time, further reforms are essential as the Institution moves forward. Director Renji Panicker’s response to the Janaki title row, captures the anxieties surrounding censorship the best, to the Board’s actions, he remarked, “characters will now have to be given numbers, not names.” Cinema as we know, imitates life, but hiding the truth of life in an attempt to soften the impact, defeats its purpose on the whole. In the larger scheme, a mature democracy must repose confidence in its story-tellers. Therefore, the CBFC’s commitment to reform can strengthen the framework of certification, thus restoring confidence in filmmakers and audiences alike.

Author: Swaha Swayamsiddha, a legal practitioner before the High Court of Orissa, with an LL.M. from National Law University Delhi (2024).

Editors: Tanu Mehta and Khushi Patel