(GIST OF YOJANA) Progressive Role of CBFC

GIST OF YOJANA : Progressive Role of CBFC

NOVEMBER-2025

Progressive Role of CBFC

Context:

Cinema the most recent form of the visual performing arts-is more influential today than other art forms. As it also includes the element of technological development, this technological advancement continues to make it increasingly popular day by day. Even in countries boards which regulate cinema according to the prevailing social values in their respective countries.

Background:

Film censorship in colonial India was formalised with the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1918, which came into force in 1920, leading to the establishment of censor boards in major cities like Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. However, the main purpose of all this was to strengthen political control that was favourable to British colonial interests, rather than to protect the creative expression of an Indian filmmaker.
Even the word ‘censorship’ in Indian cinema is a legacy of the colonial government, which sought to control the surge of Indian nationalist sentiments. For example, Indian films like Bhakta Vidur (1921], Raitu Bidda (1939), and Thyagabhoomi (1939) were banned by the British government.

Constitutional underpinnings:

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of independent India is a primary foundation for human expressions, guaranteeing the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. However, this right cannot be absolute and independent of social and cultural values, the unity and integrity of the country, public morality, foreign relations, and public order.
It is subject to ‘reasonable restrictions’ under Article 19(2). It was under this framework that the Cinematograph Act of 1952 was passed by the Indian Parliament, which gives statutory recognition to film certification.

Modernisation and Transparency Reforms:

On social media, the CBFC is often portrayed as a rigid and conservative institution. However, the Board has shown vitality and adaptability, aligning itself with the evolving expectations of the film industry and cinematic technology.
Recently, the traditional UA rating has been restructured into three distinct categories — UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+ — to foster a more nuanced balance between cinematic content and viewer age. Previously, the UA rating did not differentiate between the content needs of a 7-year-old and a 17-year-old, often leading to cultural discomfort or ‘shock’ for families watching films together in theatres.
To address these concerns, the Central Board of Film Certification introduced the UA marker system, granting parents the freedom to select content based on the age of adolescent viewers. This reform mirrors the practices of digital platforms, which routinely provide age-based content information.
Through this change, CBFC has attempted to chart a ‘middle path’-balancing the filmmaker’s creative freedom with the social expectations of parents. Filmmakers now carry a social responsibility to inform audiences in advance about the age suitability of their content.
In 2017, a major policy decision marked a paradigm shift within the CBFC. The principle of ‘good governance’ was formally integrated into the institution’s functioning, and the Board was reimagined as a facilitation center aligned with the evolving needs of the film industry.
To support this transformation, CBFC launched an online e-certification system, offering filmmakers a transparent and more reliable platform for film certification. This initiative was part of the government’s broader vision of ‘Ease of Doing Business,’ ensuring that the certification process is completed within a defined timeframe of 48 working days.

Challenges:

To address these challenges, the Act strengthened the legal framework related to anti-piracy. It now includes strict financial penalties and provisions for imprisonment in cases of unauthorised recording and exhibition-safeguarding both the rights of filmmakers and the regulatory authority of CBFC.
Two new sections, 6AA and 6AB, were added to the original Act. CBFC is evolving to play both liberal and regulatory roles simultaneously-facilitating filmmakers through its e-certification system while protecting their interests through punitive anti-piracy measures.
CBFC has recently introduced a significant reform by extending the validity of film certificates indefinitely. Earlier, a CBFC certificate was valid for only 10 years and had to be renewed-much like a passport. Now, unless exceptional circumstances arise, the certificate remains valid without any time limit.
This change has reduced the administrative burden on CBFC and eliminated the need for unnecessary re-certification-whether a filmmaker wishes to re-release their content or not. It allows filmmakers to invest their time and financial resources.

Conclusion:

The impact of a film is far broader and deeper than nuclear energy. Just as nuclear energy, when used positively, can improve the lives of millions, but when used negatively, it can destroy civilisations. Similarly, films can positively give a society new dreams and inspire people to think about and attain those dreams, but they can also lead to the cultural decline of society in a negative way. The filmmakers must realise that no art can be above the national interests. The CBFC is perpetually committed and dynamic in its effort to achieve harmony between creative thought and national interests.