"CBFC's opacity and inaction raise statutory compliance and free expression concerns"
Pre-certification
mandatory CBFC approval before a film may be publicly exhibited in theatres
Chilling effect
self-censorship by creators anticipating adverse regulatory action, suppressing expression before any formal order
India's framework for regulating cinematic content has colonial origins, with the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1918 establishing pre-censorship as the foundational principle. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 replaced this framework and created the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as the apex statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, mandating pre-certification for all films intended for public theatrical exhibition. The constitutional basis for this regime rests on Article 19(1)(a) — guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression — read with Article 19(2), which permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on exhaustive grounds including public order, decency or morality, and sovereignty of India. The Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) upheld pre-certification for cinema, recognising its unique mass appeal as distinguishing it from print media and justifying a degree of prior restraint not permissible for other forms of expression.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 modernised the certification regime by introducing age-based sub-categories — UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ — and making certificates perpetually valid. However, the abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 significantly weakened appellate remedies available to filmmakers, leaving the High Courts as the primary recourse — a costlier and slower avenue. OTT platforms remain outside the Cinematograph Act's ambit, governed instead by the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The CBFC's mandate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is to certify films — not to ban them outright. It may grant a certificate unconditionally, grant one subject to excisions or modifications, or refuse certification. Crucially, Section 5A(2) of the Act requires the Board to publish certificates in the official government Gazette, ensuring public transparency about what content was certified and under what conditions. This gazette publication requirement is not procedural formality — it is a statutory obligation that enables accountability, judicial review, and archival research.
The CBFC's certification categories — U (unrestricted), UA (parental guidance), A (adults only), and S (specialised audiences) — are mapped onto the permissible grounds under Article 19(2). …
Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the 'Right to Privacy' protected?
Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
With reference to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), consider the following statements:
1.The CBFC is a statutory body established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
2.Section 5A(2) of the Cinematograph Act requires the CBFC to publish film certificates in the official government Gazette.
3.The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court of India in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) upheld pre-certification of films primarily on which of the following grounds?
Which of the following correctly describes a 'de facto ban' in the context of film certification in India?
Consider the following pairs regarding content regulation in India:
Content Type — Governing Instrument
1.Films for theatrical exhibition — Cinematograph Act, 1952
2.OTT/streaming platform content — IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
3.Blocking of online content — Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Assertion (A): The abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 has weakened the accountability framework for CBFC decisions.
Reason (R): High Courts, unlike FCAT, lack the domain expertise in film content and impose higher costs and longer timelines on filmmakers seeking to challenge CBFC orders.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account