Malayalam film before Kerala HC on CBFC cuts: How film censorship works in India

The film deals with issues like policing, interfaith relationships and community interactions. The petitioner argues that the edits sought by the board, such as blurring the name of a Christian college and altering scenes linked to religious identity, strip meaning from those themes.

What is the CBFC?

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, created the CBFC and authorised it to examine films before release. In principle, the board is expected to classify content based on suitability for different audiences. It can certify films for unrestricted (U) viewing, unrestricted viewing with parental guidance (UA), adults only (A) or for select professional groups (S).

This framework widened this year when age-banded “UA” markers — UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+ — were introduced. These markers do not ban children; they simply signal that parents should exercise judgment. The approach is to match the streaming-era realities.

How does film certification work?

The Act permits the board to request changes before issuing a certificate. The guiding standard is the familiar list of constitutional limits on speech and expression. Given that the right to free speech and expression is a fundamental right, any encroachment on these rights is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds.

These grounds, namely the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, are enumerated as “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5B(1) of the Act also mentions these grounds within the context of the public exhibition of films. For films to be sanctioned for public exhibition, they have to remain within the scope of these reasonable restrictions.

Theoretically, this narrows the scope for cuts. But the CBFC also works within executive guidelines issued by the Central government, giving it room for a broader public interest lens that is often interpreted through concerns over religious sensibilities, law and order risks, or portrayal of institutions such as the police. The filmmakers in “Haal” argue that this elasticity has stretched far beyond what the statute envisages.

The process for certifying films runs in stages. An examining committee watches the film and makes a recommendation, after which the film may be referred to a revising committee. Certification follows, sometimes with mandated edits.

If a filmmaker disagrees, an appeal can be filed with the high courts. Earlier, there was an appellate tribunal, but it was abolished in 2021. With the appellate body removed, disputes like “Haal” now reach high courts on both procedural and expressive grounds. The petitioners claim they did not receive timely written reasons and that the referral to the revising committee was not explained, creating uncertainty during distribution planning.

When can courts step in?

In October 2025, the Delhi High Court, declined to intervene in the release of “The Taj Story.” The film faced a challenge to its certification, while the petitioners wanted the court to direct the CBFC to revisit its decision. The Bench declined, noting that courts do not function as a “super censor board.”

Since the law gives the Union government revisional powers under Section 6 of the Act, the court said that that remedy must be used first. It also recorded that the Act does not give the CBFC power to reopen or reexamine its own certificate at the request of third parties.

Judicial review focuses on whether the CBFC followed the law. Courts generally do not evaluate the creative choices in a film. Instead, they consider whether the Board relied on statutory grounds, issued reasons, and followed fair procedure. If those requirements are not met, courts may intervene. Where the CBFC acts within the framework of the Act and its guidelines, courts usually defer.

Beyond the point of certification, the Union government may suspend or revoke a certificate if a film is modified after approval or if exhibition raises public-order concerns. In some situations, it may temporarily restrict screenings without a prior hearing. The Act allows criminal liability for violations, and authorities can enter theatres and seize material. These provisions are framed as enforcement tools but also show that State control over film exhibition continues beyond certification.