Syllabus: GS-II: Govt Policy & Intervention

Why in the News?

India’s official entry to the Oscars 2026, Homebound, produced by Dharma Productions and backed by Martin Scorsese, has been at the centre of controversy after the CBFC ordered several cuts, including removal of caste references. 

More About the News

• Similarly, Punjab ’95, a film on human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, has been in limbo for three years due to CBFC demands for over 100 cuts.
• These cases highlight growing concerns about “super censorship” within CBFC, which many filmmakers say undermines India’s creative freedom and its aspiration to be a global cultural powerhouse. 
• The issue has also exposed irregularities in the board’s functioning like lack of meetings, outdated tenure, and allegations of one-man decision-making under the chairperson.

About CBFC

Historical Context

• Established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, CBFC is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B).
• Its mandate: To certify films for public exhibition in India, not censor them.
  

Structure

• Headquarters: Mumbai, with 9 regional offices (e.g., Kolkata, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Delhi).
• Chairperson: Appointed by the Union Government.
• Board Members: Officially 12, along with ~1,000 advisory panel members.
• Examining Committee (EC): Screens films initially.
• Revising Committee (RC): Handles appeals against EC’s decisions.
• Until 2021, appeals could also go to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), but it was abolished, leaving only High Courts for redressal.
  

Certification Categories (post-2021 Cinematograph Amendment Bill)

• U – Unrestricted Public Exhibition.
• UA 7+ / UA 13+ / UA 16+ – Unrestricted with parental guidance (age-based subcategories).
• A – Adults only.
• S – Special audiences (e.g., doctors, scientists).
  

Current Issues with CBFC

1. Censorship vs Certification

• CBFC’s role is to “certify,” yet it frequently orders cuts, modifications, or deletions, effectively functioning as a censor board.
  
• Homebound was asked to remove caste references.
  
• Punjab ’95 was asked to delete terms like “judicial killings,” “Delhi riots,” and even the word “Punjab.”
  

2. Institutional Irregularities

• Board not reconstituted since 2017. Members’ three-year tenures lapsed in 2020, raising questions about its legality.
  
• No quarterly meetings since August 2019, despite Cinematograph Rules mandating them.
  
• Annual reports missing since 2016-17.
  

3. Centralisation of Power

• Chairperson Prasoon Joshi accused of running a “one-man show,” with only a few “favoured” members handling most RCs.
  
• Members complain of being excluded from core functions.
  

4. Political and Ministerial Interference

• In Punjab ’95, CBFC admitted to receiving “communications” from the I&B Ministry warning of potential “radicalisation.”
  
• Raises doubts about CBFC’s autonomy.
  

5. Loss of Appellate Mechanism

• Abolition of FCAT in 2021 forces filmmakers to move High Courts — costly, time-consuming, and vulnerable to external pressures.

6. Global Reputational Costs

• Films like Homebound and Santosh earn acclaim at Cannes and Toronto, yet face domestic censorship.
• This duality hurts India’s global cultural credibility and foreign collaborations.

Way Forward

• Restore CBFC’s Legal & Institutional Integrity
  
  • Reconstitute the Board with clear tenure rules.
  • Resume mandatory meetings and annual reporting.
    
• Reinstate an Independent Appellate Mechanism
  
  • Either restore FCAT or create a quasi-judicial appellate body to resolve disputes quickly and cheaply.
    
• Clarify CBFC’s Role as Certifier, Not Censor
  
  • Limit its mandate strictly to age-based classification, not content modification.
    
  • International models like BBFC (UK) and MPA (US) can be studied.
    
• Ensure Transparency
  
  • Publish decisions, minutes of RCs, and rationale for cuts publicly to prevent arbitrariness.
    
• Balance Freedom with Responsibility
  
  • Protect filmmakers’ creative rights under Article 19(1)(a), while ensuring restrictions under reasonable limits (Article 19(2)) are narrowly applied — e.g., incitement to violence, obscenity, hate speech.
    
• Strengthen Digital Certification
  
  • Build on the e-cinepramaan system to streamline processes but combine it with institutional accountability.
    

Conclusion

The CBFC controversy reflects a deeper tension in India’s democracy — the balance between freedom of expression and state regulation of cultural content. While filmmakers face arbitrary censorship, CBFC itself suffers from legal and structural irregularities. If India wants to project itself as a global soft power leader, it must shift CBFC from a censorship mindset to a transparent, accountable, and classification-based framework.

Mains Question (250 words, 15 marks)

“The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has often been criticised for functioning more as a censor board than as a certifier.” Discuss.

The Indian Express