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.

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.