Certification or Censorship of Movies in India

The Legal Fiction of Film Certification

CBFC, Censorship, and the Cinematograph Act

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is often called India’s “censor board.” That term is misleading. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 empowers the CBFC to certify films for public viewing. In practice, the CBFC often asks for cuts, disclaimers, or changes. This amounts to censorship, not just certification. This contradiction came up strongly during the Delhi High Court’s recent review of the government’s actions in the Udaipur Files case. The official trailer is here:

Statutory Framework: What the Law Permits

CBFC’s Legal Role

  • Section 4: The CBFC examines and certifies films. Films fall into categories—U, UA, A, or S.
  • Section 5B(1): The CBFC can refuse certification if a film harms sovereignty, security, public order, decency, or morality.
  • Section 5B(2): The Central Government can issue guidelines about certification. These do not allow censorship.
  • Section 6: The Centre can review films before certification. It can direct re-examination or refuse to certify. It cannot do this after certification.

What the Law Forbids

  • The Centre cannot order edits or modifications in revisional jurisdiction after the CBFC certifies a film.
  • The CBFC is meant to certify films, not censor them. It may suggest changes only before granting certification.

Judicial Scrutiny: The Udaipur Files Case

In July 2025, the Delhi High Court heard a challenge to the Centre’s post-certification order. The Centre in revisional jurisdiction wanted six cuts in Udaipur Files, which was already certified. The Court said:

“You’ve issued directions beyond what the Certification Board had done. That’s not permissible.”

Key Legal Issues:

  • The Centre’s order went beyond its legal power under Section 6.
  • The cuts after certification broke the rule of finality.
  • The Centre’s move raised free speech concerns under Article 19(1)(a).

Comparative Insight: The UK BBFC Model

The UK also regulates films. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) focuses on certifying, not censoring.

FeatureCBFC (India)BBFC (UK)
Legal BasisCinematograph Act, 1952Video Recordings Act, 1984 (amended in 2010)
Core FunctionCertifies filmsClassifies films and gives ratings
Censorship Powers?Demands edits before certifyingCuts only if film breaks UK law of obscenity or hate speech
Post-certification interferenceCentre may order new cutsBBFC makes no further changes after rating
Legal EnforcementCertification is mandatoryRatings for home video are legally binding
TransparencyVague guidelinesPublished, clear, and consistent guidelines

 

Lessons from the UK:

  • BBFC only censors if a film breaks a law.
  • Cinema ratings are advisory, but respected.
  • Video ratings are a legal requirement.
  • The government does not demand edits after the BBFC gives a rating.

Possible Reforms for India:

  • Lay down clear, public rules for certifying films.
  • Limit government actions after certification to rare, legal cases.
  • Allow regional panels to make some decisions.
  • Make reasons for all decisions clear and public.

Conclusion: What Certification Means

The CBFC’s job is to certify films. The law does not allow the CBFC or Centre to order edits after certification. Doing so goes beyond their legal power and risks breaking the Constitution. The Delhi High Court’s view in the Udaipur Files case supports this.

The BBFC model shows a better way. It helps protect creative freedom and keeps legal rules clear. India must choose if it wants to certify films, or keep censoring them in disguise.

Appendix: Landmark Cases on Film Freedom

  • A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970): Pre-censorship can only happen with good reason. Art is protected speech. Yet in this case the challenge to the movie release was in effect a demand for pre-censorship.
  • Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): Free speech can’t be stopped just due to fear of unrest unless real danger exists. This was directly an issue raised before court in Udaipur Files case.
  • Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2020): CBFC can’t demand cuts not allowed by law. Certification must follow law, not personal morals. Yet this is what CBFC does in every case including Udaipur Files.
  • A. Picture International v. CBFC (2015): CBFC must certify, not censor. Any changes must be legally justified.

Insight: These rulings show that film regulation must be lawful, fair, and protect artistic freedom. Overreach by the CBFC is both bad policy and unconstitutional.

Small Town Lawyers: Inspiration from Abraham Lincoln

 

Small-Town Briefs and Lincolnian Echoes:
India’s Many Lincolns

The Small Town Lawyers.

Preface: Redefining the Lincoln Analogy

While the United States reveres Abraham Lincoln—the rural, small town lawyer who rose to historic greatness—India has produced not just one, but multiple ‘Lincolns’. This article reframes the narrative and celebrates Indian leaders whose modest beginnings in the corridors of law, meritocratic ascent, and far-reaching public service mirror—and in some ways, surpass—the Lincolnian ideal.

The Limits of Popular Narratives

Mainstream commentary and AI-driven searches often misattribute the “Indian Lincoln” title to contemporary metropolitan luminaries such as Ujjwal Nikam, J. Sai Deepak, Indira Jaising, Ram Jethmalani, and Fali Nariman. While each is accomplished, their rise was tied to legal careers launched from urban power centers, institutional support, influential political, ideological, or ethnic group backing, and consistent media amplification.

Their journeys, shaped by visibility and networked privilege, diverge sharply from the Lincolnian model of organic, small-town, and merit-based ascent to national office.

Even giants like Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar—though trained in law and monumental in impact—do not fit this archetype:

  • Gandhi practiced law briefly and unsuccessfully in Bombay and a small town, Rajkot as per his own biography. He moved to South Africa but was mainly doing liasoning for his clients with the British Government. He renounced advocacy to lead mass movements; he did not pursue formal constitutional office, nor was his ascent shaped by sustained courtroom practice.
  • Ambedkar was a brilliant legal mind, constitutional architect, and accomplished yet unsung economist, but his contributions emerged from scholarship, activism, and policy—not from long years in grassroots advocacy or the daily legal grind.

India’s True Lincolns: Ground-Up Legal Luminaries

The true Indian Lincolns are those who rose from the courts of small towns and humble origins to the very summit of the republic, leaving an indelible mark on Indian democracy. Their journeys capture the spirit of Lincoln: tireless courtroom advocacy, uncompromising integrity, and a climb from the grassroots by merit alone.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad: Bihar’s Advocate Who Became India’s First President

Born in a small village in Bihar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad began his legal practice in the district courts of Bengal and Bihar, known for his humility, commitment to justice, and service to the poor. He gained a reputation as a principled and effective advocate—qualities that made him a trusted ally in India’s freedom movement.

Prasad played a pivotal part in organizing legal responses to colonial repression and used his courtroom skills to advance the cause of nationhood. He emerged as the President of the Constituent Assembly, guiding the drafting of the Indian Constitution with consensus and moral clarity. In 1950, he became the first President of India: not only the republic’s highest constitutional office but also its enduring symbol of unity, humility, and service.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: The Barrister Who United a Nation

Sardar Patel began his career as a barrister in the small-town setting of Godhra and then Ahmedabad, practicing civil and criminal law with exceptional acumen. He was renowned for his rigorous preparation, ethical standards, and ability to win the trust of ordinary clients—traits that soon extended to organizational and political work.

His courtroom skills quickly translated to public leadership: he organized successful peasant movements, most notably the Bardoli Satyagraha, and went on to play a decisive role as India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister. Tasked with integrating over 500 princely states into the Union of India, Patel’s steadfastness, courage, and legal mind made him the “Iron Man of India”—an architect whose work ensured the republic’s very existence. The world’s tallest statute “The Statute of Unity” in Gujarat is dedicated to Sardar Patel.

Ram Nath Kovind: From Rural Advocate to Reform Architect

Ram Nath Kovind’s life began in Paraunkh, a small village in rural helmet of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Rising from humble beginnings, he built his legal career as an advocate in Kanpur and Delhi, focusing on social justice and representing the underprivileged. He provided extensive pro bono assistance, especially to marginalized communities—a quiet, merit-based journey that bypassed elite lobbies and political patronage.

After years of legal and public service, Kovind’s and a brief stint as Governor of Bihar, his ascent culminated with his election as the 14th President of India. Yet his legacy is destined to stretch far beyond his presidency. In 2023, Kovind was appointed Chairman of the High-Level Committee on One Nation, One Election. Under his leadership, the committee undertook one of India’s most wide-ranging exercises in constitutional consultation—hearing from political parties, experts, and tens of thousands of citizens—before submitting an ambitious roadmap for synchronizing elections nationwide.

This potential reform, if implemented, will bring about a fundamental shift in India’s democratic architecture, cementing Kovind’s place in history as more than a ceremonial head of state: as a reformer and architect whose impact—like Lincoln and few others—shapes the nation’s future as well.

Conclusion: India’s Plural Lincolnian Legacy

The journey from small-town advocacy to the heights of public trust is not the exception in India—it is a recurring legacy. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Ram Nath Kovind demonstrate that the ideals that made Lincoln iconic are alive in India’s story, many times over.

Recognizing these leaders reminds us that true legal and political greatness is forged in the quiet diligence of grassroots service, not the spotlight of media or the corridors of urban power.

See also:

Why everything has to be kadak or strong in India

Fictional Youtube video directs UK Prime Minister to resign.

Keir Starmer

Silent Force v Starmer: