The Central Board of Film Certification came into existence, after the birth of cinematography in India, in 1951. Primary the work of CBFC is to certify the films. But as time evolves the Central Board of Film Certification starts to censor films in the name of certification. Is CBFC defining its own definition of morality and social harmony in India, by censoring the “art of the director” ?
According to our Constitution, everyone has a right to express and speech themselves through any form - like writing, speech, or even cinematography. But this right is subjected to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The reasonable restrictions can be put in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India as a state, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
CBFC works to ensure that these rights are exercised fairly and within these restrictions. While certifying films, if they find something that can result in any kind of mob or violence, they can modify it or cut that scene (if it’s too provocative), but always while considering the director’s vision.
CBFC is working to set morality and restrict the view of the Indian audience by creating its own definition of what to view or not. For example, double-meaning jokes or objectifying women in the Housefull franchise, Masti franchise are allowed, but a kissing scene in Superman is called “overly sensual” and cut.
The list does not end here. Lipstick Under My Burkha, which explores women’s sexuality, was initially banned. CBFC called it “lady-oriented,” citing “contagious sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography” and content too sensitive for certain societal sections. When filmmakers appealed, after 16 voluntary cuts, FCAT granted it an 'A' certificate.
Udta Punjab faced 94 proposed cuts, including city names and profanity. When the Bombay HC intervened, the film eventually released with only one cut and a revised disclaimer.
And the list continues….
CBFC’s work is to certify films and ensure the fair use of the “right to express and speech,” not to condemn someone’s art, their directorship, or their views in the name of social harmony or morality, or by labeling something “too sensual” to watch. CBFC already has different certificates to ensure a “safe watch,” like U/A, U, A, and S. So why force all movies and directors’ art into one rigid box, restricting Indian audiences to the same types of movies and web series?
Indian audiences want heterogeneous cinema, not a homogeneous one where the same story is repeatedly told just by changing the characters’ names. Is this the reason Indian cinema is lagging behind? Are directors afraid to show what they really want?
“The board is meant to provide a certificate, not censor or cut our films. We too have responsibilities as filmmakers. Our sensibilities may be different, but we must respect each other. Let the audience decide what they want to reject. How can one person become the moral guardian?”
- Anurag Kashyap, Director of Udta Punjab
“After 127 cuts, only the trailer will be left. I don’t agree with those 127 cuts. Even if the film is released with all those cuts, I’ll remove my name from it. I can understand that there is pressure on my producers to release with 127 cuts, where everything gets changed and it becomes something else. But it’s not directed by me, so why would I take CBFC’s credit away? It’s probably coming from people with an agenda; these people at CBFC, when you speak to them, can’t even talk straight.”
- Honey Trehan, Director of Punjab 95
Even the United Kingdom's official entry for the Best International Feature Film category at the 97th Academy Awards (2025) - “Santosh” - was blocked by CBFC. CBFC claimed the film, which explores police brutality, Islamophobia, casteism, and misogyny, could be sensitive for Indian audiences despite its international success.
CBFC is censoring films, creating homogeneity in Indian cinema, and restricting directors’ art. This narrows viewers’ vision, turning television and cinema into repetitive, formulaic patterns. Fans often criticize directors’ story choices, but when their real art gets censored repeatedly, anyone would play it safe.
The moves of CBFC have been questioned and criticized by the Supreme Court and High Courts of different states, many times stating that their responsibility is to certify films, not to censor them.
We can understand that CBFC’s intentions may be well-meaning, but the way they carry out their work is flawed. They tend to judge every piece of cinema using the same rigid standards, censoring based on every potential negative impact. The CBFC needs to broaden its perspective and adopt a more nuanced approach when evaluating films.
