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 |
|
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. |
