Almost a decade after the Information and Broadcasting Ministry reconstituted the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with an 18-member board featuring several well-known names from the film and entertainment industry, including Pankaj Tripathi, Preity Zinta and Rupali Ganguly, the ministry’s revised certification guidelines are once again in focus.

CBFC issues revised guidelines for films certification process

The guidelines lay down the objectives that the CBFC is expected to consider before granting certification to films for theatrical exhibition. Among other provisions, they state that films should remain responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society, while certification should be responsive to social change. They also state that violence should not be glorified and that the modus operandi of criminals, or visuals and words likely to incite the commission of offences, should not be depicted.

Films shouldn’t strain friendly relations with foreign states

The guidelines further state that “visuals or words promoting communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific or anti-national attitudes should not be presented.” They also say that “films should not strain India’s friendly relations with foreign states.”

Story continues below.
Subscribe to see fewer ads.

The provision could assume significance for films dealing with India-China tensions, particularly against the backdrop of the two countries’ ongoing efforts to improve bilateral ties.

Against this backdrop, Salman Khan’s upcoming war drama Maatrubhumi: May War Rest In Peace, formerly titled Galwan Attack, has drawn attention. The film is based on the India-China military tensions surrounding the 2020 Galwan clash. A recent report said the film is facing delays in obtaining CBFC certification, with its China connection reportedly among the issues surrounding the hold-up.

Previously, speaking about the uncertainty surrounding Salman Khan’s film, a source close to the development told SCREEN: “Since the mention of the Battle of Galwan has ruffled many feathers, the aim is now to avoid any more such controversy. So, there’s no direct mention of China. It’s like how Pakistan was referred to as ‘padosi mulk’ back when relations between the two neighbouring nations were looking up. Unlike Dhurandhar, which lived, breathed and then ate up Pakistan, Salman’s film can’t afford that because China isn’t in the same place as Pakistan for India.”

Story continues below this ad

‘Say No To Drugs’

The revised certification framework also contains specific provisions concerning the depiction of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Scenes involving their consumption, use or trafficking are required to carry a statutory warning or disclaimer: “Illicit Narcotics Destroy Health and Guarantees Imprisonment. Say No To Drugs.”

The guidelines also caution against content that may hurt the “sentiments or sensibilities of people”, as well as depictions of child abuse, crimes against women and unnecessary or avoidable violence.

Films to be categorised under UA, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ or A

Films that meet the prescribed criteria can be certified under the categories UA, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ or A, depending on their nature, content and themes.

The guidelines state that films considered unsuitable for non-adults despite meeting the other criteria should be certified for adult audiences only.

Story continues below this ad

For films receiving unrestricted public exhibition, the board is also required to ensure that the content is suitable for family viewing — meaning that all members of a family, including children, should be able to watch the film together.

If the board believes that a film’s nature, content or theme requires parental guidance, it can be placed under the UA 7+, UA 13+ or UA 16+ categories.

Despite controversies, certain guidelines remain the same

In recent years, several films have made headlines over their interactions with the CBFC, including instances where filmmakers were asked to alter titles or other elements before certification.

One prominent example was the Malayalam film Janaki vs State of Kerala. The CBFC objected to the original title because the name “Janaki”, which is also associated with Goddess Sita, was used for the film’s lead character, a sexual-assault survivor. The dispute eventually went before the Kerala High Court, and the film was cleared after the title was changed to Janaki V vs State of Kerala.

Story continues below this ad

The controversy also prompted wider debate, with the Kerala High Court questioning the objection and pointing to the existence of several films using names associated with Hindu deities.

Against the backdrop of such controversies, the guidelines’ provision on film titles has particular relevance. They state that the board should “scrutinise” film titles carefully and ensure that they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or in violation of the certification guidelines.

The latest provisions, therefore, place several considerations before filmmakers and the certification board — from violence, drugs and social sensitivities to depictions that could affect India’s relations with other countries.