The Central Board of Film Certification, a statutory body under the ministry of information and broadcasting tasked with reviewing and certifying films for public viewing, has long faced criticism for exceeding its mandate and policing content. Recent data from CBFC Watch, an independent research project, lends weight to this concern. In the past eight years, the CBFC has arbitrarily altered more than 720 hours of film content. Between 2017 and 2025, nearly 550 hours of footage were deleted, about 80 hours inserted, and less than 35 hours replaced. The list of films adversely affected is long, the latest casualty being Homebound, India’s official entry to the Academy Awards, which suffered multiple cuts before release. What compounds this issue, as many film-makers argue, is that the CBFC is battling multiple structural challenges. The tenure of the current board lapsed in 2020, leaving its legal standing uncertain. No fresh appointment has been made since 2017, and the board has not convened an official meeting since 2019. The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, which offered a platform for appeals against CBFC’s decisions, was abolished in 2021. With no appellate authority in place, film-makers are left with little recourse if a certificate is denied or unjustified cuts are imposed. OTT platforms, which were considered to bring about a democratisation of creative content and viewing, are not free from the CBFC’s dreaded scissors either: the Information Technology Rules, 2021 endorse the regulation of online content.
There is a need to view the CBFC’s high-handedness beyond bureaucratic malaise; it reveals the State’s desire to curtail artistic freedom as well as its bid to infantilise audiences. The board’s moral crusade is also marked by inconsistency and bias. Films exploring female sexual agency, caste violence, or politically sensitive themes often face disproportionate censorship, while cinema propagating divisive views, violence and misogyny gets passed without a whiff of protest. This selective cultural gate-keeping not only stifles creative autonomy but also robs the audience of its freedom to choose the kind of films it wants to watch. Even though The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 introduced sub-classifications to make film certification more age-appropriate, it did little to curb the CBFC’s discretionary overreach. With checks and balances absent, the judiciary remains the only meaningful safeguard. In June, the Kerala High Court had to remind the CBFC that its role is to certify, not moralise. But that piece of wisdom has clearly fallen on deaf ears.