Hubbry Logo
Central Board of Film CertificationCentral Board of Film CertificationMain
Open search
Central Board of Film Certification
Community hub
Central Board of Film Certification
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Central Board of Film Certification
Central Board of Film Certification
Central Board of Film Certification
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Central Board of Film Certification
CBFC
Film Certification Body overview
JurisdictionIndia
HeadquartersMumbai, Maharashtra
Film Certification Body executive
Parent Film Certification BodyMinistry of Information and Broadcasting
Key document
  • Cinematograph Act, 1952
Websitecbfcindia.gov.in

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory film-certification body in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India. It is tasked with "regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952."[1] The Cinematograph Act 1952 outlines a strict certification process for commercial films shown in public venues. Films screened in cinemas and on television may only be publicly exhibited in India after certification by the board and edited.[2]

Certificates and guidelines

[edit]
Four yellow boxes with black letters: U, UA, A and S
Film-certificate categories

The board currently issues four certificates. Originally, there were two: U (unrestricted public exhibition with family-friendly movies) and A (restricted to adult audiences but any kind of nudity not allowed). Two more were added in June 1983 that are U/A (unrestricted public exhibition, with parental guidance for children under 12) and S (restricted to specialised audiences, such as doctors or scientists).[3] The board may refuse to certify a film.[4] Additionally, V/U, V/UA, V/A are used for video films with U, U/A and A carrying the same meaning as above.[5] Variations of the U/A certificate were introduced in November 2024: U/A 7+, U/A 13+ and U/A 16+.[6]

U certificate

[edit]

Films with the U certification are fit for unrestricted public exhibition and are family-friendly. These films can contain universal themes like education, family, drama, romance, sci-fi, action etc. These films can also contain some mild violence, but it cannot be prolonged. It may also contain very mild sexual scenes (without any traces of nudity or sexual detail).

U/A certificate

[edit]

Films with the U/A certification can contain moderate adult themes that are not strong in nature and are not considered appropriate to be watched by a child without parental guidance. These films may contain moderate to strong violence, moderate sexual scenes (traces of nudity and moderate sexual detail can be found), frightening scenes, blood flow, or muted abusive language. Sometimes such films are re-certified with V/U for video viewing. The age threshold was previously set at 12 years of age, but in 2024 this was further refined to 7, 13 and 16 years of age.[7]

  • UA 7+ – Unrestricted public exhibition, but with parental guidance for children below the age of 7 years and appropriate above the age of seven.
  • UA 13+ – Unrestricted public exhibition, but with parental guidance for children below the age of 13 years.
  • UA 16+ – Unrestricted public exhibition, but with parental guidance for children below the age of 16 years.

A certificate

[edit]

Films with the A certification are available for public exhibition, but with restriction to adults only. These films can contain strong violence, explicit and strong sexual scenes, abusive language, but words which insult or degrade women or any social group. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] are not allowed. Controversial, adult or suggestive themes are considered unsuitable for young viewers. Such films are often re-certified with V/U and V/UA for TV, which does not happen in the case of U and U/A certified movies.[15]

S certificate

[edit]

Films with S certification cannot be viewed by the public. Only people associated with it (doctors, scientists, etc.) are permitted to view these films.[15]

History

[edit]

The Indian Cinematograph Act came into effect in 1920[16] , seven years after the production of India's first film: Dadasaheb Phalke's Raja Harishchandra. Censorship boards were originally independent bodies under the police chiefs of the cities of Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (now Kolkata), Lahore (now in Pakistan), and Rangoon (now Yangon in Myanmar) it was amended again on 1 August 2023 with the introduction of Cinematography Amendment Bill. The bill awaits presidential assent.

After the 1947 independence of India, autonomous regional censors were absorbed into the Bombay Board of Film Censors. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 reorganised the Bombay board into the Central Board of Film Censors.[17] With the 1983 revision of cinematography rules, the body was renamed the Central Board of Film Certification.[18]

In 2021 the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) was scrapped by the Indian government.[19][20]

Principles

[edit]

The board's guiding principles are to ensure healthy public entertainment and education and, using modern technology, to make the certification process and board activities transparent to filmmakers, the media and the public also every video have to undergo CBFC certification for telecasting or distributing over any platform in India and suggestible same standards for anywhere in the world.[21]

Refusal to certify

[edit]

In addition to the certifications above, there is also the possibility of the board refusing to certify the film at all.

The board's guidelines are:

  • Anti-social activities (such as violence) may not be glorified.
  • Any Controversial topics
  • Criminal acts may not be depicted.
  • The following is prohibited:
    • a) Involvement of children in violent acts or abuse.
    • b) Abuse or ridicule of the physically or mentally handicapped.
    • c) Unnecessary depictions of cruelty to animals.
  • Gratuitous violence, cruelty, or horror.
  • No scenes encouraging alcohol consumption, drug addiction or smoking.
  • No vulgarity, obscenity, depravity or double entendres.
  • No scenes degrading women (despite many sexist movies being certified), including sexual violence (as much as possible).
  • No denigration by race, religion or other social group.
  • No promotion of sectarian, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes.
  • Relations with foreign countries should not be affected.
  • No national symbols or emblems, except in accordance with the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950).[22]

Enforcement

[edit]

Since 2004, censorship has been rigorously enforced. An incident was reported in which exhibitor staff – a clerk who sold the ticket, the usher, a theatre manager and the partners of the theatre complex – were arrested for non-compliance with certification rules for allowing minors to watch the Tamil language film 7/G Rainbow Colony which received A rating after certification.[23]

Composition and leadership

[edit]

The board consists of a chairperson and 23 members, all of whom are appointed by the central government. Prasoon Joshi chairs the board; Joshi became its 28th chairperson on 11 August 2017, after Pahlaj Nihalani was fired.[24] Nihalani had succeeded Leela Samson after Samson quit[25] in protest of an appellate tribunal's overturning of a board decision to refuse certification for MSG: The Messenger. Samson had succeeded Sharmila Tagore.[26]

The board, headquartered in Mumbai, has nine regional offices:

Chairs
No. Name From To
1 C. S. Aggarwal 15 January 1951 14 June 1954
2 B. D. Mirchandani 15 June 1954 9 June 1955
3 M. D. Bhatt 10 June 1955 21 November 1959
4 D. L. Kothari 22 November 1959 24 March 1960
(2) B. D. Mirchandani 25 March 1960 1 November 1960
(4) D. L. Kothari 2 November 1960 22 April 1965
5 B. P. Bhatt 23 April 1965 22 April 1968
6 R. P. Nayak 31 April 1968 15 November 1969
7 M. V. Desai 12 December 1969 19 October 1970
8 Brig. R. Sreenivasan 20 October 1970 15 November 1971
9 Virendra Vyas 11 February 1972 30 June 1976
10 K. L. Khandpur 1 July 1976 31 January 1981
11 Hrishikesh Mukherjee 1 February 1981 10 August 1982
12 Aparna Mohile 11 August 1982 14 March 1983
13 Sharad Upasani 15 March 1983 9 May 1983
14 Suresh Mathur 10 May 1983 7 July 1983
15 Vikram Singh 8 July 1983 19 February 1989
16 Moreshwar Vanmali 20 February 1989 25 April 1990
17 B. P. Singhal 25 April 1990 1 April 1991
18 Shakti Samanta 1 April 1991 25 June 1998
19 Asha Parekh 25 June 1998 25 September 2001
20 Vijay Anand[27] 26 September 2001 19 July 2002
21 Arvind Trivedi 20 July 2002 16 October 2003
22 Anupam Kher[28] 16 October 2003 13 October 2004
23 Sharmila Tagore[29] 13 October 2004 31 March 2011
24 Leela Samson 1 April 2011 16 January 2015
25 Pahlaj Nihalani 19 January 2015 11 August 2017
26 Prasoon Joshi 12 August 2017 Incumbent

Controversies

[edit]

The board has been associated with a number of scandals. Film producers reportedly bribe the CBFC to obtain a U/A certificate, which entitles them to a 30-percent reduction in entertainment tax.[30]

In 2002, War and Peace (a documentary film by Anand Patwardhan which depicted nuclear weapons testing and the September 11 attacks) had to be edited 21 times before the film was approved for release. According to Patwardhan, "The cuts that [the Board] asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court. But if these cuts do make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media."[31] A court ruled that the cut requirement was unconstitutional, and the film was shown uncensored.[32]

Also in 2002, Indian filmmaker and CBFC chair Vijay Anand proposed legalising the exhibition of X-rated films in selected cinemas. Anand said, "Porn is shown everywhere in India clandestinely ... and the best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them openly in theatres with legally authorised licences".[33] Anand resigned less than a year after becoming chairperson in the wake of his proposal.[34]

The board refused to certify Gulabi Aaina (a film about Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan) in 2003; Rangayan unsuccessfully appealed the decision twice. Although the film is banned in India, it has been screened internationally.[35][36]

Final Solution, a 2004 documentary examining religious riots between Hindus and Muslims in Gujarat of the 2002 Gujarat riots which killed over 1,000 people, was also banned. According to the board, the film was "highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence".[37][38] After a sustained campaign, the ban was lifted in October of that year.[39]

The CBFC demanded five cuts from the 2011 American film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, because of nudity and rape scenes. The producers and the director, David Fincher, eventually decided not to release the film in India.[40]

CEO Rakesh Kumar was arrested in August 2014 for accepting bribes to expedite the issuance of certificates.[41] The board demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the 2015 Malayalam film, Chaayam Poosiya Veedu) (directed by brothers Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan), because of nude scenes. The directors refused to make the changes, and the film was not certified.[42][43]

CBFC chairperson Leela Samson resigned in protest of political interference in the board's work in 2015 after its decision to refuse certification of the film, MSG: The Messenger, was overturned by an appellate tribunal. Samson was replaced by Pahlaj Nihalani, whose Bharatiya Janata Party affiliation triggered a wave of additional board resignations.[44] The board was criticised for ordering the screen time of two kissing scenes in the James Bond film Spectre to be cut by half for release.[45]

Udta Punjab (2016), a crime drama about drug issues in the state of Punjab, produced by Anurag Kashyap, Ekta Kapoor, et al., inspired a list of 94 cuts and 13 pointers (including an order to remove Punjabi city names). The Bombay High Court allowed the film's release with one cut and disclaimers.[46]  A copy of the film was leaked online, with evidence suggesting CBFC involvement.[47] Kashyap posted on Facebook that although he did not object to free downloads, he hoped that viewers would pay for the film.[48] The film eventually grossed over ₹97 crore (US$11 million),[49] a commercial success. In August 2017, days after his removal as CBFC chair, Nihalani said in an interview that he had received instructions from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to block the release of this film and at least one other.[50]

Lipstick Under My Burkha (2017) by Alankrita Shrivastava, produced by Prakash Jha, was initially denied certification, with the CBFC claiming that "The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life. There are contanious [sic] sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society".[51] The black comedy, which had been screened at international film festivals, was eligible for the Golden Globes.[52] The filmmakers appealed to the board's Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which authorised its release.[53] The FCAT requested some cuts (primarily to sex scenes), and the film was released with an "A" certificate. Shrivastava said she would have preferred no cuts, but felt the film's narrative and essence were left intact, and commended the FCAT's handling of the issue.[54]

In 2018, Ashvin Kumar's film No Fathers in Kashmir at first received an "A" certificate. In his open letter to the CBFC chairperson, Kumar stated that for an independent film, this was "as good as banning the film".[55] After appealing to the FCAT and incorporating a few cuts and disclaimers at its request, the film was granted a "U/A" certificate eight months after its initial submission.[56]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Central Board of Film Certification

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, responsible for regulating the public exhibition of films by certifying their suitability for viewing based on established guidelines. Originally known as the Central Board of Film Censors until June 1, 1983, it was established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to examine films for compliance with principles safeguarding national security, public order, decency, morality, and respect for women, among others. The CBFC issues certificates in categories including U (unrestricted public exhibition), U/A (unrestricted with caution for children under 12), A (restricted to adults), and S (restricted to specialized audiences). Headquartered in Mumbai with nine regional offices across India, the board comprises a government-appointed chairperson, non-official members, and advisory panels drawn from diverse fields to assist in evaluations. Although renamed to emphasize certification over censorship, the CBFC's mandate permits refusals or required modifications for non-compliant content, leading to ongoing debates about balancing creative expression with societal protections in India's prolific film industry.

Cinematograph Act 1952 and Amendments

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, enacted by the , received presidential assent on 21 March 1952 and established a centralized mechanism for certifying cinematograph films for public exhibition while regulating exhibitions to safeguard , , public order, decency, and morality. Part II of the Act constitutes the Central Board of Film Censors—comprising a chairperson and 12 to 25 members appointed by the under Section 3—and empowers it to examine films submitted for under Section 4. Section 5B delineates certification principles, prohibiting approval of films that undermine India's and integrity, State , foreign relations, public order, decency or morality, or that defame individuals, incite offenses, or ; the Board may sanction films with excisions, modifications, or conditions, or refuse after applicant hearings. The original Act introduced certificate categories including "U" for unrestricted public viewing and "A" for adults only, with examinations conducted by committees of Board members or advisers. Certification aims to balance artistic expression with societal safeguards, though implementation has varied, with the Board issuing certificates valid initially for 10 years under later provisions. Appeals against refusals or excisions lie with the or designated authorities. Subsequent amendments have refined certification scope, Board nomenclature, categories, and enforcement. Act 3 of 1959 substituted Sections 3 through 6, enhancing procedural details for examinations, appeals, and Board composition to streamline certification. Act 49 of 1981, effective 1 June 1983, renamed the Board the Central Board of Film Certification, introduced the "S" category for viewing restricted to specialized professionals or classes, and added Section 5E for advisory panels in examinations. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023—receiving assent on 30 July 2023 and notified effective 11 August 2023—marked the first major revision in nearly four decades, eliminating the 10-year certificate validity to permit indefinite duration unless revoked for violations. It added age-subdivisions under "UA" (UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+) for parental guidance, empowered the Central Government to order re-examinations of certified films threatening sovereignty or public order, and inserted Sections 6AA and 6AB to penalize unauthorized filming or exhibition (camcordings) with first-offense imprisonment of three months to three years and fines up to 5% of audited gross pre-tax earnings (or ₹3 lakh minimum if unascertainable), escalating for repeats. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, omitted the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (Sections 5D and 5DD), redirecting appeals to High Courts. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, updated penalties under Sections 7 and 15 for licensing violations.

Distinction Between Censorship and Certification

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) operates under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which establishes it as a body for certifying films for public exhibition rather than engaging in censorship. Certification entails reviewing films to assign categories—such as U (unrestricted), UA (unrestricted with parental guidance), A (adults only), or S (specialist audiences)—based on content suitability for various age groups, thereby informing viewer choices without prohibiting exhibition outright. This process aligns with Section 4 of the Act, which mandates prior certification as a prerequisite for screening, emphasizing classification over suppression. In legal terms, the distinction hinges on the Act's Section 5B, which bars certification only for films that undermine India's , integrity, security, friendly , public order, decency, , or are likely to incite offenses, while allowing modifications if issues can be addressed. Unlike traditional , which may impose blanket prohibitions or arbitrary excisions without audience-guiding labels, CBFC certification permits films to proceed post-review, with provisions for appeals to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal under Section 5D. Proponents, including government statements, argue this framework protects —particularly minors—through transparent guidelines updated periodically, such as the 1991 amendments incorporating public exhibitions' impact. Critics, however, contend that the subjective application of Section 5B principles often results in censorship, as boards demand cuts for perceived or cultural sensitivities, blurring the line despite the certification nomenclature. Judicial interventions, such as those reinforcing proportionality in refusals, underscore that must not equate to moral guardianship but remain confined to statutory bounds, though varies by board composition and . This tension reflects broader debates on under (1)(a) of the , where serves as a conditional approval mechanism rather than absolute veto.

Organizational Structure

Composition of the Board

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is constituted under Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, comprising a chairperson and not less than 12 nor more than 25 other members, all appointed by the Central Government of . These members are designated as non-official, drawn primarily from rather than government service, to facilitate independent evaluation of films. Appointments occur for fixed terms of two years, with provisions for reappointment, ensuring periodic renewal while maintaining continuity in oversight. Members are selected to represent diverse professional backgrounds, including fields such as , , , social sciences, , and , aiming to incorporate varied societal perspectives in certification processes. The Act itself specifies no mandatory qualifications beyond the government's discretion in appointments, allowing flexibility but raising occasional critiques regarding expertise alignment with film evaluation needs. The chairperson, appointed separately, holds responsibility, overseeing board operations and representing it in policy matters; as of recent records, this role has been held by figures from , such as lyricist since 2017. In practice, the full board does not convene for every but delegates to smaller examination committees formed from its members, typically comprising 2 to 6 individuals per review, supplemented by regional advisory panels for localized input. This structure balances centralized authority with distributed workload, though it has faced scrutiny for potential inconsistencies arising from member turnover and subjective interpretations. The retains authority to reconstitute the board or adjust its size via notification, adapting to evolving administrative demands.

Leadership and Regional Offices

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is led by a Chairperson appointed by the under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who oversees policy implementation and certification guidelines derived from the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Chairperson, along with non-official members, guides the Board's operations, ensuring films align with statutory principles before public exhibition. has served as Chairperson since August 11, 2017. A , responsible for administrative and operational execution, supports the Chairperson; the position is currently held by Shri Rajendra Singh, based in . The CBFC maintains a decentralized structure with its headquarters in and nine regional offices to facilitate film examinations across , allowing certifications to reflect regional sensitivities while adhering to national guidelines. Each regional office is headed by a Regional Officer who coordinates examination committees comprising advisory panel members nominated by the for two-year terms from diverse fields such as , , and social sciences. These offices handle pre-certification scrutiny, reducing central bottlenecks and enabling faster processing for regional cinema industries. The regional offices are located in:
CityState/Region
(Headquarters)
Bengaluru
Hyderabad
This distribution covers major filmmaking hubs and linguistic regions, with Mumbai serving as the primary hub for national-level appeals and oversight.

Certification Categories and Guidelines

Principles Guiding Certification Decisions

The principles guiding certification decisions by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) are enshrined in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which mandates that films must align with national interests and societal norms to receive public exhibition approval. Specifically, subsection (1) prohibits certification of any film, or part thereof, that the certifying authority deems contrary to the and integrity of , the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality; or that involves defamation, , or incitement to offences. This foundational criterion ensures films do not undermine core public goods, with decisions resting on the subjective opinion of the competent authority, typically informed by examining committees. Under subsection (2) of Section 5B, the has issued supplementary guidelines to direct certification authorities, balancing with responsibility toward societal values and cinematic quality. These guidelines, formulated in exercise of powers under the Act and superseding prior versions, prioritize preventing the glorification of anti-social behaviors such as or , while prohibiting scenes depicting child involvement in abuse, harm to the handicapped or animals, gratuitous cruelty or horror, or promotion of including alcohol, drugs, or . Content involving vulgarity, obscenity, depravity, degrading portrayals of women, or is similarly barred, as are elements contemptuous of racial, religious, or communal groups; anti-national sentiments; or risks to security and public order. Additional directives require respect for national symbols, the dignity of the , and avoidance of provocative or vulgar titles that could mislead audiences or offend decency. For unrestricted (U) certification, films must be suitable for family viewing, embodying healthy entertainment without explicit themes. Adult (A) certification applies to content unsuitable for minors, while specialized restrictions may limit exhibition to defined audiences if broader harms are anticipated. These principles reflect an intent to foster socially sensitive filmmaking amid evolving norms, though their application has sparked debates on interpretive discretion and potential overreach in curbing expression.

Categories of Certificates (U, UA Subdivisions, A, S)

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) issues certificates under four primary categories: U, UA, A, and S, as outlined in the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and subsequent amendments. These categories determine the suitability of films for different audience segments based on content involving , , , and other potentially sensitive elements. The U category signifies unrestricted public exhibition, indicating films appropriate for viewers of all ages without any content likely to adversely affect children. The UA category permits unrestricted public exhibition subject to parental guidance, particularly for children below a specified age, to ensure age-appropriate viewing. In November 2024, the CBFC introduced subdivisions within UA—UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+—to provide more granular advisories: UA 7+ films require parental guidance for children under 7 years, deeming them suitable thereafter; UA 13+ advises guidance for those under 13; and UA 16+ for under 16. This update, formalized by government notification on May 31, 2025, aims to enhance parental decision-making amid evolving content standards. Films in these subcategories may include moderate levels of violence, sensuality, or thematic intensity not deemed harmful to the specified age groups when viewed with discretion. The A category restricts exhibition to adult audiences aged 18 and above, applicable to films containing strong adult themes, explicit violence, sexual content, or language unsuitable for minors. Such certifications prevent public screenings accessible to children, enforcing separation based on maturity levels required to process the material without psychological impact. The S category is reserved for specialist audiences, such as professionals in fields like , , or defense, where films feature technical, scientific, or instructional content incomprehensible or irrelevant to the general public. Examples include educational documentaries or simulations targeted at niche groups, ensuring broad accessibility is not mandated for non-relevant viewers. This category maintains certification integrity by aligning exhibition with intended specialized utility rather than mass entertainment.

Certification Process

Examination Committees and Procedures

The Examining Committees of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) are ad hoc bodies constituted by Regional Officers to review films submitted for certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. For feature films, each committee typically comprises five members: one CBFC examining officer and four members drawn from the Board's advisory panels, with at least two included to ensure gender diversity. Short films are examined by a smaller committee of one CBFC officer and one advisory panel member, who must be a . The names of committee members are not disclosed to applicants or unrelated parties to maintain impartiality. The examination procedure commences with online submission of the application via the e-Cinepramaan portal, accompanied by required documents, fees, and a lab certificate verifying the film's readiness and duration. Upon scrutiny within seven days to confirm completeness, the Regional Officer forms the within 15 days, prioritizing applications in order of receipt. The committee views the film collectively, with each member independently recording their views on certification category, suggested excisions, and compliance with Section 5B guidelines, which prohibit content undermining India's sovereignty, security, or relations with foreign states, or inciting offenses against public order. Decisions require or consensus; the report is forwarded to the CBFC Chairperson within three days for final determination on certificate issuance, category (U, UA, A, or S), and any modifications. If the Chairperson requires cuts or modifications based on the report, the applicant is notified and must submit responses or revised prints within five days, followed by re-examination of excisions within 10 days. The entire process, from scrutiny to certificate issuance, is mandated to conclude within 48 days, though extensions may apply for complex cases or applicant delays. Films are examined at regional offices corresponding to the production's or origin, with provisions for screening and telephonic hearings to minimize physical visits since 2021. In cases of disagreement or applicant , the film proceeds to a Revising , but examination remains the initial gatekeeping step ensuring films align with statutory principles without beyond .

Appeals and Revisions

Applicants dissatisfied with the decision of the Examining Committee may request review by a Revising Committee within eight weeks of the initial order under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Revising Committee comprises the Chairperson or a nominated Board member, along with at least two other members not involved in the original examination, and it views the unaltered film print while independently recording decisions and reasons for any modifications, category, or refusal. This internal revision mechanism allows for potential reversal or adjustment of the Examining Committee's recommendations without requiring new submissions or cuts unless deemed necessary by the committee. Prior to 2021, appeals against final Board orders from either the Examining or Revising Committees lay with the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) under Section 5D of the Act, with applications required within 30 days of the order. The FCAT, a , could confirm, modify, or reverse CBFC decisions, including directing certifications or excisions, and operated with a chairperson and up to four members appointed for three-year terms. However, the FCAT was abolished effective April 4, 2021, through the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, later enacted as the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, consolidating tribunals to reduce pendency and overlap with judicial functions. Post-abolition, filmmakers challenging CBFC refusals, certifications, or mandated cuts must file writ petitions directly in the relevant under Article 226 of the , invoking Section 5C for appeals against certification denials. have upheld this route, emphasizing expeditious hearings due to the time-sensitive nature of film releases, as seen in rulings affirming maintainability of such appeals despite the FCAT's absence. Further appeals from orders lie to the under Article 136. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, effective from August 30, 2023, expanded CBFC powers for revoking certifications on grounds of public order or sovereignty but did not reconstitute an appellate tribunal, preserving oversight for disputes while introducing stricter anti-piracy enforcement and refined age-based classifications. This shift has increased judicial burden, with critics noting delays in certification appeals—sometimes exceeding months—potentially stifling independent filmmakers compared to the FCAT's specialized, faster resolution. No statutory timelines bind in these matters, though interim reliefs like stay on refusals are occasionally granted pending .

Enforcement and Compliance

State-Level Enforcement Responsibilities

Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, state governments bear primary responsibility for enforcing compliance with CBFC-issued film during public exhibitions. Certification itself remains a central subject managed by the CBFC, but states must apply the Act's penal provisions against violations, including the exhibition of uncertified films, disregard of mandatory cuts or conditions, or failure to observe rating restrictions such as age limits for UA subdivisions. State licensing authorities, typically district magistrates or designated officials, regulate cinema halls and other exhibition venues through state-specific legislation modeled on or supplementing the central Act, such as the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952, which empowers them to grant, suspend, or revoke licenses contingent on adherence to rules. These authorities conduct inspections, investigate complaints, and initiate prosecutions, often in coordination with local police, to prevent unauthorized screenings or alterations like reinserting censored content. Penalties for non-compliance are stipulated in Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, , encompassing imprisonment up to three years, fines up to ₹1,00,000 (as amended), or both, with states responsible for pursuing legal action against exhibitors, distributors, or operators. In practice, enforcement varies by state; for example, on June 25, 2025, the CBFC advised the government to implement strict measures amid reports of widespread violations, underscoring states' frontline role in upholding certification integrity. States also monitor compliance in non-theatrical settings, such as mobile screenings or festivals, ensuring certified films align with public order and sovereignty safeguards outlined in the Act.

Penalties for Violations and Unauthorized Exhibition

Under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, penalties apply to various violations, including the exhibition of uncertified films, banned films, films with forged certificates, or alterations such as re-inserting deleted portions or adding uncertified content. For films, offenders face for up to three years, a fine up to ₹1 , or both, with an additional fine of up to ₹20,000 per day for continuing offenses. Video films attract from three months to three years, fines from ₹20,000 to ₹1 , plus ₹20,000 per day for ongoing violations. These offenses are cognizable and non-bailable, enabling police seizure of offending materials and premises searches under Section 7A, with courts empowered to order forfeiture of films to the government. Additional violations under Section 7 include exhibiting 'A'-certified films to minors or 'S'-certified films to unauthorized audiences, as well as failure to provide details to exhibitors or distributors under Section 6A. Enforcement responsibility lies with state governments and administrations, often through district magistrates or local police, who monitor compliance during screenings. The (Amendment) Act, 2023, introduced heightened penalties specifically for unauthorized of infringing copies, targeting film piracy under new Sections 6AA (prohibiting unauthorized recording in theaters) and 6AB (prohibiting profit-driven of such copies at unlicensed venues or in copyright-infringing manners). Section 7(1A) prescribes imprisonment from a minimum of three months to three years, alongside fines starting at ₹3 lakh and extending up to 5% of the film's audited gross production cost. Aggrieved parties may also invoke remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957, or , against intermediaries facilitating such exhibitions. These measures aim to deter camcording and bootleg distribution, distinct from penalties for non-piracy violations of rules.

Historical Development

Colonial-Era Precursors

The introduction of cinema to occurred in 1896 with public exhibitions of films in Bombay and Calcutta, initially facing no systematic regulation beyond general public order laws. As film production grew, particularly with Dadasaheb Phalke's in 1913 marking the first Indian feature, colonial authorities grew concerned over potential moral corruption, incitement to unrest, and challenges to British authority, prompting local restrictions by municipal bodies and police. These early measures lacked uniformity, varying by and often targeting imported films from and America perceived as obscene or politically subversive. The Cinematograph Act of 1918 provided the first comprehensive legal framework, empowering provincial governments to license exhibition venues and establish mechanisms for sanctioning films deemed suitable for public viewing, with powers to prohibit those likely to incite crime, outrage religious feelings, or endanger public tranquility. Under this Act, independent regional censor boards were formed in 1920 in key centers including Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Rangoon, operating under oversight and typically comprising officials, magistrates, and occasionally Indian representatives. These boards conducted pre-exhibition examinations, issuing certificates or demanding cuts, with a primary emphasis on suppressing nationalist content that could fuel anti-colonial sentiment, alongside moral prohibitions on , sexuality, and violence—often prioritizing the protection of imperial prestige over indigenous cultural sensitivities. For instance, Bombay and Calcutta boards adapted guidelines from the British Board of Film Censors, focusing on "indecency" and political . The decentralized structure persisted through the 1920s and 1930s, with the Indian Cinematograph Committee (1927–1928) recommending standardized certification principles across provinces—such as avoiding ridicule of public figures or glorification of vice—but rejecting a central authority in favor of provincial autonomy to accommodate regional variations. During , censorship intensified under the Defence of India Rules, enabling broader executive bans on films perceived as undermining the war effort or Allied interests, with boards like Bombay's exerting influence over both imported and domestic productions. These provincial bodies, lacking national coordination, served as direct precursors to post-independence reforms, embodying colonial priorities of and ideological conformity rather than .

Post-Independence Establishment and Evolution

Following India's in , film regulation transitioned from colonial-era regional boards to a centralized framework, with the Bombay Board of Film Censors absorbing autonomous regional entities. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 formalized this shift by establishing the Central Board of Film Censors as a under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, tasked with examining and certifying s for public exhibition to ensure they did not undermine India's , integrity, security, friendly , public order, decency, or morality. This Act, enacted on October 23, 1952, and effective from subsequent notifications, unified censorship standards across the country, replacing prior fragmented oversight with a national board headquartered in and regional offices. The Board's initial structure included a chairman and members appointed by the central government, supported by advisory panels comprising experts in social sciences, literature, arts, and other fields to review films in examination committees. Certification categories under Section 5A of the Act—Universal (U), Adult (A), and later refinements—aimed to guide public viewing while prohibiting uncertified exhibitions, with penalties for violations delegated to state authorities. Early guidelines under Section 5B emphasized preemptive content restrictions, reflecting post-independence priorities like nation-building and cultural preservation amid rising film production, which grew from about 200 features annually in the early 1950s to over 300 by the decade's end. Over subsequent decades, the Board's evolution incorporated procedural refinements, such as the 1978 guidelines strengthening scrutiny of and , though core functions remained tied to the 1952 Act. In 1983, the name changed to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), signaling a nominal shift from overt to certification, while retaining mandatory cuts or refusals for non-compliant content; this rebranding coincided with expanded regional presence, including offices in , , , and Hyderabad by the 1980s. The Board's caseload surged with Bollywood's output, certifying over 1,500 films annually by the 1990s, prompting internal adaptations like digital submission pilots in the late , though substantive reforms awaited later legislative updates.

Key Reforms Up to 2025

In 2016, the Committee recommended transforming the CBFC into a purely body without authority to mandate excisions, modifications, or amendments, emphasizing classification over and proposing additional age-based categories beyond U, UA, and A. These suggestions aimed to align with artistic freedom under (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution while protecting viewers through descriptive guidelines rather than prescriptive cuts, though full implementation did not occur. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, enacted on August 30, 2023, introduced perpetual validity for film certificates, eliminating the prior 10-year renewal requirement and reducing administrative burdens on filmmakers. It formalized sub-classifications under the UA category—UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+—to better delineate age-appropriate content, alongside retaining U, A, and S ratings, thereby enhancing viewer guidance without altering core principles. The Act also mandated separate for television broadcasts, addressing discrepancies between theatrical and televised exhibitions, and empowered the to direct re-examination of certified films if deemed necessary for public order, though this provision has drawn criticism for potential executive overreach. Additionally, it imposed stringent penalties for unauthorized recording or exhibition to combat , with fines up to rupees for first offenses and potential imprisonment. Complementing the 2023 Act, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, notified on March 15, 2024, streamlined procedural efficiencies, including online applications, priority screening for films promoting or social issues, and a mandate for at least one-third female representation in examining committees to promote gender balance in decision-making. These rules further subdivided UA categories for precision in age advisories and required CBFC to provide detailed reasons for refusals or modifications, fostering transparency amid ongoing debates on subjective interventions. The abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal in April 2021 shifted appeals directly to high courts, centralizing judicial oversight but eliminating a specialized , which some stakeholders argue has increased litigation burdens without resolving certification delays. By 2025, these reforms have modernized aspects of the certification process for digital-era challenges, such as online distribution, yet persistent demands for excisions—totaling over 550 hours of content altered between 2017 and 2025—indicate incomplete transition from practices. No further statutory amendments were enacted through October 2025, though procedural guidelines continue to evolve via CBFC advisories.

Notable Refusals and Interventions

High-Profile Refusals

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has denied certification to several high-profile films, primarily on grounds of potential to incite communal disharmony, excessive violence, or culturally sensitive depictions, leading to legal challenges and debates over . These refusals often involve films addressing politically charged subjects or social taboos, with the board invoking Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which allows denial if content is deemed likely to affect public order or morality. In March 2025, the CBFC refused certification for , a Hindi-language film directed by Sandhya Suri that was selected as the United Kingdom's official entry for the ' Best International Feature category. The board cited concerns over the film's portrayal of , Islamophobia, and police brutality against Muslim women, arguing it could exacerbate communal tensions in India's polarized social context; the decision blocked its theatrical release despite international acclaim at festivals like , prompting criticism from filmmakers for suppressing narratives on systemic issues. Another prominent refusal occurred in July 2025 for Ajey: The Untold Story of a Yogi, a biopic loosely based on the life of , drawing from the book The Monk Who Became Chief Minister. The withheld without providing detailed grounds initially, leading producers to the , which in August directed the board to furnish specific reasons for the denial; the case highlighted tensions between biographical depictions of living political figures and norms, with no resolution reported by late 2025. In September 2025, the upheld the CBFC's refusal for Masoom Kaatil, dismissing the filmmaker's appeal against the board's decision to deny due to excessive , mockery of religions, and content potentially inciting in a secular society. The film, directed by Shyam Bharteey, featured graphic scenes that the court deemed unfit for public exhibition, reinforcing the board's stance on protecting societal harmony amid rising concerns over vigilante narratives. Earlier in June 2025, the CBFC denied to Tamil director Vetrimaaran's Manushi, which critiques custodial harassment and police misconduct, prompting an appeal to the where the board's objections centered on depictions likely to undermine authority and provoke unrest. This refusal underscored ongoing friction between regional cinema's push for unflinching and the CBFC's interpretive application of guidelines.

Demands for Cuts and Edits

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) routinely demands cuts and edits from filmmakers to align with its certification guidelines, which prohibit content deemed obscene, excessively violent, defamatory to communities, or threatening to public order and sovereignty. These interventions can involve excising scenes, muting dialogues, inserting disclaimers, or altering titles, often leading to disputes resolved through appeals or judicial oversight. For instance, in cases involving political or historical sensitivities, the board has required modifications to avoid perceived offenses against religious or regional sentiments. A prominent early example occurred with (2016), where the CBFC initially proposed 94 cuts, including the removal of all references to "" from the title, signage, and narrative—despite the film's core theme of drug abuse in that state—and excisions of and graphic depictions. This drew accusations of undermining the film's anti-drug message, leading producers to approach the , which ruled in their favor, permitting release with an 'A' certificate and only audio muting of select abuses rather than wholesale deletions. In (2018), originally titled Padmavati, the CBFC mandated a title change, insertion of disclaimers affirming , and cuts to dream sequences and romantic elements to mitigate objections from groups claiming distortion of history. These edits, totaling around 300 suggestions in initial reviews, were partially accepted to secure a 'U/A' certificate amid protests. More recent demands highlight ongoing patterns: For Emergency (2024), the board sought deletions of specific dialogues, voice-overs, and visuals related to historical events like the 1975-1977 period, alongside insertions clarifying factual basis. In L2: Empuraan (2025), 17 cuts targeted depictions of the , including riot footage and related dialogues, following complaints of inflammatory content. Baaghi 4 (2025) faced 23 excisions for "excessive violence" and "objectionable" scenes despite an 'A' rating intent, while War 2 (2025) required trimming 9 seconds of sensual visuals and an obscene gesture. Punjab '95 (2025), a on a slain activist, encountered over 120 proposed changes, such as replacing "" with generic terms and softening police brutality portrayals, stalling its certification. Such requirements extend to international films, as seen with (2025), where the CBFC excised two kiss scenes totaling 33 seconds for being "overly sensual," sparking debates on inconsistent standards for intimacy versus . Directors often comply partially to avoid delays, but refusals—like in (2025), where extensive cuts to police brutality and scenes were rejected—can halt releases, underscoring the board's leverage in balancing artistic expression against its interpretive enforcement of moral and social norms.

Controversies and Societal Debates

Criticisms of Arbitrary Decision-Making

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has faced persistent accusations of arbitrary decision-making, characterized by subjective interpretations of its guidelines, inconsistent application across similar content, and insufficient transparency in refusing certifications or demanding cuts. Critics argue that the board's reliance on vague criteria—such as protecting "public sentiment" or "moral standards"—allows personal biases of certifying committees to override objective standards, resulting in rulings that vary unpredictably between regional panels or over time. For instance, in , the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal criticized the CBFC for issuing certifications without transparency or notification to applicants regarding refusal reasons, highlighting a systemic lack of . This arbitrariness manifests in demands for extensive, often illogical edits, fostering among filmmakers wary of unpredictable outcomes. Between 2017 and 2025, the CBFC altered over 720 hours of content through deletions, insertions, and replacements, with nearly 550 hours modified in the latter period alone, frequently without an effective appellate mechanism to challenge such interventions. Notable examples include the 2025 certification of the Empuraan, which required 24 changes amid sensitivities around , mythology, and politics, and the Hollywood Superman, where the board mandated cuts to kissing scenes despite their innocuous nature in global releases, prompting backlash for cultural overreach inconsistent with prior approvals of similar content. Further illustrations of inconsistency include the 2025 handling of Homebound, India's Oscar entry directed by , which underwent 11 mandatory changes before domestic release, including alterations to dialogues and visuals deemed sensitive, despite international acclaim without such edits. In the case of JSK: Janaki vs State of (2025), the CBFC demanded modifications citing political sensitivities, leading the to intervene by reviewing the film itself—a recurring judicial response to perceived caprice. These episodes underscore claims that the CBFC functions more as a moral arbiter than a neutral certifier, with decisions influenced by external pressures like religious or political lobbies rather than uniform guidelines, eroding creative freedom without verifiable justification.

Defenses Based on Cultural and Moral Standards

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) guidelines explicitly mandate that certified films must remain "responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of " while providing "clean and healthy ," thereby aiming to prevent content that offends human sensibilities through , , or depravity. These standards are designed to ensure films do not deprave audience morality or degrade the portrayal of women, with specific prohibitions on dual-meaning words that appeal to baser instincts and minimization of scenes involving unless essential to the narrative. For unrestricted (U) certification, films must be suitable for family viewing, reflecting a commitment to preserving communal viewing norms in India's diverse and often conservative social fabric. Supporters of the CBFC's approach argue that such certification balances artistic expression with cultural sensitivities, particularly in a society where Western-influenced content may clash with local norms of modesty and . For instance, cuts to "overly sensual" scenes, such as a 41-second kissing sequence in the 2025 film Superman: Legacy, were defended as necessary to secure a UA (parental guidance) rating rather than restricting it to adults only, ensuring accessibility for broader audiences including those in smaller towns and conservative households without causing discomfort. This perspective posits that the CBFC safeguards Indian cultural context against global media that normalizes intimacy in ways potentially disruptive to traditional sensibilities, framing not as regressive control but as a mechanism for social harmony and moral appropriateness in public exhibition spaces. Judicial precedents reinforce these defenses, with the in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971) upholding pre-certification as essential for films due to their visual impact on impressionable viewers, justifying restrictions on to protect public morality without unduly suppressing expression. The certification categories—U, UA, A, and S—further operationalize this by tailoring content suitability to age groups, thereby preventing insensitive or controversial material from crossing societal boundaries of decency and averting potential disharmony. Proponents contend this framework upholds the Cinematograph Act, 1952's intent to foster films that align with national standards of , countering arguments for unrestricted freedom by emphasizing the medium's mass influence on cultural preservation.

Judicial Interventions and Reforms

The judiciary in has played a pivotal role in checking the Central Board of Film Certification's (CBFC) discretionary powers, often invoking Article 19(1)(a) of the , which guarantees and expression, while balancing it against reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for public order, decency, and morality. High Courts and the have intervened in numerous cases where the CBFC imposed excessive cuts, refused , or delayed processes, criticizing the board for arbitrary decision-making that borders on pre-censorship beyond statutory limits under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. These rulings have emphasized that should facilitate exhibition rather than suppress content, provided it does not incite violence or undermine national integrity, and courts have quashed demands for alterations unless supported by specific evidence of harm. A landmark intervention occurred in the case on June 13, 2016, when the overruled the CBFC's order for 13 cuts and a title change in the film addressing drug abuse in , allowing release with only one excision (a scene depicting urination on a crowd) and an 'A' certificate. The court rebuked the CBFC for "over-sensitivity" and inconsistency, noting that similar depictions of drug issues in other regions like had been permitted, and directed immediate certification to prevent undue delay that could defeat the film's purpose. This judgment set a against blanket excisions, mandating that cuts be justified by tangible risks rather than vague moral concerns, and highlighted political pressures potentially influencing the board. Subsequent cases reinforced this scrutiny. In Anand Patwardhan v. CBFC (pre-2016 but echoed in later rulings), the Bombay High Court faulted the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) for violating free speech by refusing certification to a documentary on communal issues without adequate reasoning. The Supreme Court in Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. (2022) upheld a film's certification despite objections from disability rights advocates, ruling that artistic expression depicting fictional impairments did not inherently demean real persons with disabilities absent intent to incite hatred. More recently, in June 2025, the Kerala High Court intervened in the certification delay for JSK: Janaki v. State of Kerala, ordering the CBFC's revising committee to view and decide within days, underscoring that prolonged holds without justification infringe on exhibitors' rights. Similarly, the Telangana High Court in Vyuham (February 2024) directed reconstitution of the CBFC's revising committee with reasoned orders for excisions, rejecting unmotivated refusals. These interventions have prompted incremental reforms, though systemic overhaul remains elusive. Post-Udta Punjab, the government constituted the Shyam Benegal Committee in 2016, which recommended transforming the CBFC into a pure certification body without mandatory cuts, emphasizing viewer advisories over excisions; its guidelines, adopted in 2017, urged boards to prioritize creative freedom and avoid "glorification of violence" only where it promotes emulation. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, effective from 2024, introduced age-based classifications (e.g., U/A 7+, U/A 13+) to replace vague 'UA' ratings, enhanced anti-piracy measures, and abolished the FCAT, routing appeals directly to High Courts to expedite resolutions and reduce bureaucratic layers. However, critics argue these changes expanded CBFC's scope to revoke certificates post-release for "national interest," potentially enabling retrospective censorship, as seen in stays like Udaipur Files (2025), where the Supreme Court deferred hearings despite initial CBFC approval amid fair trial concerns. Judicial oversight thus continues to enforce accountability, with courts repeatedly affirming that CBFC decisions must be reasoned, proportionate, and non-arbitrary to withstand review.

References

  1. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/about.php
  2. http://mib.gov.in/ministry/organizations/central-board-film-certification
  3. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/certification.php
  4. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/cbfc/
  5. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2170/5/a1952-37.pdf
  6. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-12/cinematograph-act-1952-incorporating-latest-amendments.pdf
  7. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/assets/pdf/cine_act1952.pdf
  8. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_parliament/2023/Cinematograph_%28Amendment%29_Act%2C_2023.pdf
  9. https://www.levelupias.com/cinematograph-act-1952-2023-amendments/
  10. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/certification.php
  11. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3979cb7f-9b7b-450e-b31a-6103cffcae5a
  12. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-cbfc-problem-censorship-in-the-name-of-certification
  13. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/20/censorship-and-films-silencing-cinematic-voice/
  14. https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/17.-Yashita-Parashar.pdf
  15. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/assets/pdf/AR_2016-17_English.pdf
  16. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/assets/pdf/RFP_Vol_I.pdf
  17. https://pwonlyias.com/cbfc-central-board-of-film-certification/
  18. https://www.pw.live/upsc/exams/central-board-of-film-certification
  19. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-working-of-the-central-board-of-film-certification/
  20. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/about.php
  21. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/list-of-chairpersons.php
  22. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/contact-us.php
  23. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/441329/
  24. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/guidelines.php
  25. https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/film-certification-in-india-the-central-board-of-film-certification-cbfc/
  26. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/
  27. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/u7-13-16-cbfc-introduces-more-film-rating-categories/articleshow/115533493.cms
  28. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/centre-notifies-new-age-based-film-certification-categories-under-ua-rating/article69642516.ece
  29. https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-12/final-cinematograph-certification-rules-14032024-1accessible.pdf
  30. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/film-certification-process.php
  31. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-how-does-the-censor-board-work-why-is-it-controversial/
  32. https://www.livemint.com/Consumer/cfcU7XyIiGvKYHdUFbN4VM/How-does-Indias-censor-board-work.html
  33. https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/10/14/how-is-a-film-certified-by-the-censor-board
  34. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/applicant.php
  35. https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/the-government-notifies-the-cinematograph-certification-rules-2024/
  36. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/assets/pdf/Online_sc.pdf
  37. https://theiashub.com/upsc/central-board-of-film-certification/
  38. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-role-significance-of-film-certification-tribunal-now-abolished-7263409/
  39. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/news/appeals-against-cbfc-certification-under-s-5c-cinematograph-act-are-maintainable-before-high-court-post-tribunal-reforms-act-madras-high-court-INDMAD00000404200
  40. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/glorification-of-vigilantism%2C-cannibalistic-gore%2C-and-communal-denigration-justifies-outright-refusal-of-film-certification:-delhi-high-court-on-cbfc%25E2%2580%2599s-powers-and-post-fcat-appeals/view
  41. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42fdda94-e888-46bf-824f-a4aeb1f08e30
  42. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/9/bollywood-anxious-as-india-abolishes-film-certification-tribunal
  43. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/learning-with-times-film-certified-s-restricted-to-specialized-audiences/articleshow/49038989.cms
  44. http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/pb/act/pca1952anxo1952361/
  45. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/8395/1/punjab_cinemas_act_and_rules_1952_pdf_%25281%2529.pdf
  46. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2170?view_type=browse
  47. https://e-pao.net/ge.asp?heading=40&mx=&src=250625
  48. https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=985
  49. https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/enforcement.php
  50. https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/unveiling-the-veil-evolution-of-censorship-in-indian-cinema-and-the-quest-for-artistic-freedom/
  51. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/var.1995.11.2.36
  52. https://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/cen/num_act/ca1918138/
  53. http://mediaclassification.org/timeline-event/film-censorship-begins-india/
  54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2022.2135123
  55. http://mediaclassification.org/timeline-event/cinematograph-act-1918-india/
  56. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781843146018-15/chapter-12-natives-looking-cinema-censorship-colonial-lndia-madhava-prasad
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03086534.2023.2166389
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249748918_Censoring_India_Cinema_and_the_Tentacles_of_Empire_in_the_Early_Years
  59. https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/central-board-of-film-certification-cbfc-history-significance-and-functioning-1665580302-1
  60. https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/act-and-rules.php
  61. https://blog.ipleaders.in/introduction-cbfc-cinematograph-act-1952/
  62. https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/662938/1/IQ_240_04082016_U2071_p230_p232.pdf
  63. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/shyam-benegal-committee-r_n_9783646
  64. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2023
  65. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f07b9135-19ee-4eb7-9bd3-6e689904d2ad
  66. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2014950
  67. https://law.asia/film-certification-overhaul/
  68. https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/disquiet-in-film-board-censorship-raj-no-meeting-in-6-years-no-reports-term-lapsed-10269755/
  69. https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/moral-board-editorial-on-cbfc-overreach-and-the-shrinking-space-for-artistic-freedom-prnt/cid/2125912
  70. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/26/santosh-film-blocked-india-police-brutality-cannes
  71. https://english.amarujaladigital.com/national/cbfc-denies-certification-to-film-based-on-yogi-adityanath-s-life-producers-move-hc
  72. https://maktoobmedia.com/india/internationally-acclaimed-film-santosh-faces-ban-in-india-over-police-brutality-portrayal/
  73. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/hc-directs-cbfc-to-provide-grounds-for-rejection-of-certification-to-ajey-101754595077182.html
  74. https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/no-certification-for-film-mocking-religions-inciting-hatred-in-secular-society-delhi-hc-on-masoom-katil-1518384
  75. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movies/news/vetri-maaran-moves-high-court-after-censor-refusal-for-andreas-manushi/articleshow/121590568.cms
  76. https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/on-cbfcs-chopping-board-caste-mythology-politics-and-punjab-10269751/
  77. https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/how-cbfc-made-udta-punjab-bleed-here-are-all-the-94-cuts/story-R5V1SvN0IC3aaNUigtUm9M.html
  78. https://www.idiva.com/entertainment/bollywood/the-many-perils-of-padmavati-cbfc-cleared-film-after-demanding-300-cuts/17073814
  79. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kangana-ranaut-film-emergency-cuts-cbfc-9590600/
  80. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/others/l2-empuraan-cbfc-orders-17-cuts-in-mohanlal-film-after-row-over-depiction-of-gujarat-riots-makers-to-trim-scenes-101743304330079.html
  81. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/cbfc-suggests-23-cuts-in-tiger-shroff-starrer-baaghi-4-despite-a-rating-exposing-scenes-and-many-dialogues-also-cut-deets-inside/articleshow/123694466.cms
  82. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/cbfc-cuts-down-9-seconds-of-sensual-scenes-from-hrithik-roshan-kiara-advani-jr-ntr-starrer-war-2-along-with-an-obscene-gesture-scene-deets-inside/articleshow/123201707.cms
  83. https://article-14.com/post/-the-censor-board-is-a-back-door-for-govt-to-control-the-film-world-director-of-stalled-movie-on-slain-punjabi-activist-68621e1fd7699
  84. https://variety.com/2025/film/news/superman-kiss-censored-india-1236460431/
  85. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/cbfc-blocks-release-of-santosh-director-asked-to-make-extensive-cuts-on-police-brutality-and-societal-issues/articleshow/119568554.cms
  86. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tribunal-slams-cbfcs-arbitrary-film-certifications/articleshow/52721367.cms
  87. https://www.thehindu.com/data/over-720-hours-of-film-content-altered-by-indian-censor-board-in-recent-years/article70071303.ece
  88. https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/hollywood/story/cbfc-censor-board-sparks-backlash-over-superman-and-f1-cuts-fans-slam-censorship-2754830-2025-07-12
  89. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/homebound-faces-cbfc-censorship-11-changes-made-in-ishan-khatter-and-janhvi-kapoor-starrer-ahead-of-india-release/articleshow/124121152.cms
  90. https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/5-times-courts-reviewed-films-before-cbfc-censorship-10319122/
  91. https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/cbfc-censorship-politics-modi-government-cinema-creative-freedom/article69787244.ece
  92. https://www.moderntreatise.com/asia-pacific/2025/7/25/india-insights-the-censorship-of-love-supermans-kiss-and-the-culture-wars
  93. https://legaleye.co.in/blog_news/film-censorship-and-certification-under-indian-media-law/
  94. https://yourlegalcareercoach.com/film-censorship-in-india-vis-a-vis-cbfc-a-detailed-analysis/
  95. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/27/judicial-censorship/
  96. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shri-anand-patwardhan-v-the-central-board-of-film-certification/
  97. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36518288
  98. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/censor-wanted-13-cuts-court-clears-udta-punjab-with-one-2850991/
  99. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/06/15/cbfc-order-all-but-quashed-issue-certificate-for-udta-punjab/
  100. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/nipun-malhotra-v-sony-pictures-films-india-private-limited/
  101. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/news/kerala-hc-intervenes-in-jsk-film-certification-standoff-20250625165843
  102. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/02/08/thc-directs-cbfc-to-reconstite-revising-committee-and-decide-certification-of-film-vyuham-legal-news/
  103. https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/centres-suggested-six-changes-implemented-udaipur-files-producer-informs-supreme-court-1513573
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.