Trigger-Happy CBFC

(Source: The Indian Express, Editorial Page)

Also Read: The Indian Express Editorial Analysis: 11 July 2025
Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 11 July 2025

Topic: GS2 – International Relations, GS3 – Indian Economy (External Sector)

Context

The recent controversy surrounding the Malayalam film Janaki v/s State of Kerala has once again spotlighted the role of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in India’s democratic framework. Far from merely certifying films, the CBFC appears to be increasingly engaged in acts of moral policing, with questionable legal backing. This trend has deep implications for freedom of speech, artistic liberty, and cultural expression, making it a critical issue for governance, society, and the Constitution — and thus relevant for UPSC aspirants.

Understanding the Janaki Controversy

• The film, Janaki v/s State of Kerala, tells the story of a rape survivor seeking legal justice and was denied CBFC certification citing the film’s “provocative and inflammatory” content.
• The objections included the use of a name with mythological significance and the presence of a courtroom character of another faith, triggering fears of potential communal discomfort.
• The filmmakers eventually reached a compromise, agreeing to alter key scenes to secure clearance. However, this raised deep concerns about creative suppression and institutional overreach.

Shifting Role of the CBFC

1. From Certifier to Censor

• CBFC was originally established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to certify films based on age-appropriateness, not to censor ideological or political narratives.
• However, recent events show that the CBFC often denies certification based on presumed future public reaction, not actual legal violations or threats.
• This results in de facto censorship, where films must either self-edit or face delayed release, even without any formal ban.

2. Political and Religious Sensitivities in Play

• CBFC decisions increasingly reflect political and religious considerations, especially when the film touches on issues related to caste, gender, or religion.
• This pattern of behavior indicates an erosion of objective regulatory governance, replaced by identity politics and populist pressures.
• Instead of protecting audiences, such moves infantilize the public, assuming they lack the maturity to engage with difficult content.

3. Precedents of Overreach

• CBFC’s interference with Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016), Padmaavat (2018), and L2: Empuraan (2024) are illustrative of a pattern of censorship disguised as classification.
• Often, the justification includes “hurting sentiments,” “potential unrest,” or “anti-national narratives,” even when no specific community files an official complaint.
• This encourages pre-emptive edits, diluting cinema’s ability to question power structures or tell marginalized stories.

CBFC’s Mandate vs. Current Trends

Aspect	CBFC’s Legal Mandate	Recent Actions
Legal Role	Certify films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952	Refusal to certify films based on moral or political judgments
Primary Function	Classify content by age-appropriateness	Pre-emptively censoring content due to presumed public backlash
Institutional Role	Promote creative liberty with reasonable checks	Suppress controversial narratives and limit socio-political critique
Approach to Governance	Objective, rule-based classification	Subjective, populist-based censorship

Conclusion

The CBFC’s refusal to certify Janaki v/s State of Kerala on speculative grounds reflects a disturbing shift from rule-based regulation to moral surveillance. This not only undermines Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution — the right to freedom of expression — but also promotes a culture of self-censorship among filmmakers. As India aspires to be a mature democracy, such knee-jerk reactions have a chilling effect on dissent, debate, and discourse.

Way Forward

• Legal Reforms: Amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to clearly define the limits of CBFC’s powers, restricting it to age-based classification only.
• Independent Review Board: Establish a neutral appellate tribunal for filmmakers to challenge CBFC decisions swiftly and fairly.
• Transparent Criteria: The CBFC must adopt a uniform, publicly accessible set of guidelines to avoid arbitrary and politically motivated decisions.
• Foster Public Maturity: Encourage public dialogue and education around creative freedom, instead of censoring difficult content. A democracy must trust its people to choose what they wish to see.

Practice Question: (GS-3 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) “The CBFC’s role has increasingly shifted from classification to censorship, posing a threat to creative freedom and democratic values.” Discuss in the context of recent controversies in India.