CENTRAL BOARD OF
FILM CERTIFICATION

This case concerned a filmmaker, Khwaja Ahmad Abbas wanting a "U" certification for his documentary "A Tale of Four Cities". The documentary looked at differences between the rich and poor, with a short scene of Mumbai's red light district. He claimed pre-certification was unconstitutional under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Decision: The Supreme Court confirmed pre-certification and classification of films under Article 19(2) was constitutional, with movies having a unique effect. However, Chief Justice Hidayatullah noted censorship should focus on "the overall effect of the piece as seen by a man of ordinary common sense and prudence and not by an old fashioned prude looking for scenes of vice". "The standard set for our censors should therefore allow for a considerable margin in favour of freedom of expression so that we leave a wide scope for the artist to portray life and society as he sees it including some of its foibles."

The Tamil film "Ore Oru Gramathile" had its U certification revoked by the Madras HC due to widespread protests and threats of violence. The film discussed the reservation policy but from an economic point of view.

Decision: The SC overturned this decision. This case is known as the Political Cinema Manifesto.

"Spark in a Powder Keg": "You can only suppress expression if there is an imminent threat to public order and therefore it must be a spark in a powder keg."

Heckler's veto overturned: "If the film cannot be restricted under Art 19(2), as it is not problematic, you cannot restrict expression due to the threat of demonstrations/processions or threats of violence. This would amount to a negation of the rule of law."

"Bandit Queen" was a biopic by Shekhar Kapur which showed the horrors of caste violence and gang rape Phoolan Devi had suffered. It received an "A" certification from the FCAT, but was overturned by the Delhi HC as being "obscene and indecent" due to frontal nudity and swearing.

Decision: The Supreme Court overturned this decision. The "Contextual Integrity Test" was established. Nudity, violence or swearing cannot be taken out of context. The Court found the nudity in Bandit Queen wasn't to stimulate prurient interest (obscenity). It was to provoke feelings of disgust and empathy with the suffering of a member of the underclass. "Nakedness does not always excite the baser instincts."

The CBFC Revising Committee wanted 13 major cuts to be made to the film "Udta Punjab". This included removing the word "Punjab" from the title, removing any mentions of real cities in Punjab, and swearing. They claimed this was "defaming" the state of Punjab.

Decision: The Division Bench of Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and Burgess Colabawalla overturned 12 of the 13 cuts. This case established that the CBFC are Certification Board not Censorship Board. The word "Censorship" does not feature in the Cinematograph Act. Their main role is to classify films.

Anil Kapoor approached the Delhi HC against 16 defendants. These defendants were using Generative AI to produce Deepfakes of him (morphing his face onto other actors such as Katrina Kaif), AI voice cloning, selling unauthorised merch and misusing his famous catch phrase "Jhakaas".

Decision: Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued an injunction protecting Kapoor's name, image, likeness, voice and distinctive mannerisms and catchphrase. While the Court noted it was okay to use free expression for satirical purposes, parody, reporting and genuine criticism, it was too far if actors were misrepresenting his persona (Deepfake porn / offensive), or using him for free merch.

The essential Counter Weight case. Rario was suing Striker for using cricketers names, stats and artwork in the NFT cards. Rario had exclusive licenses from the cricketers.

Decision: Justice Amit Bansal did not grant an injunction as in India, personality/publicity rights are not absolute. Using freely available information (name, true stats) and transformative artwork doesn't constitute misrepresentation so Art 19(1)(a) will prevail.

Arijit Singh (Playback Singer) filed a commercial Intellectual Property claim against AI platforms and defendants who were providing Text to Speech (TTS) and Real Time Voice Cloning (RVC) apps. These allowed users to change any audio file or text into Arijit Singh's singing voice. They were also creating AI avatars and selling merch.

Decision: For the first time in India, an injunction was granted to protect a celebrity's voice. Justice R.I. Chagla found that a celebrity's voice is a key element of their personality rights and they have moral rights as a performer under section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court commented that changing random audio into the voice of a singer without permission "amounts to a gross violation of his right to protect his name, image, voice and likeness." This could also affect the livelihood of performers.

After Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) passed away in June 2020, filmmakers created and streamed "Nyay: The Justice" which was heavily inspired by SSR's life and death. His father filed a claim saying that the film went against his sons posthumous personality, publicity and privacy rights.

Decision: Justice C. Hari Shankar rejected the request for an injunction. This case created a new rule for the AI era. In India you do not have a right to privacy (Art 21) or a natural right to publicity. These are personal rights and will cease once the individual passes away (actio personalis moritur cum persona). This is covered in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Unless the filmmaker creates untrue defamatory information that directly affects the reputation of living family members, posthumous personality rights cannot be claimed.

In 2025 to Oct 2026 there was a surge of AI claims at the Delhi and Bombay HCs. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar & Nagarjuna Akkineni [HC Delhi 2025] and Asha Bhosle [HC Bombay 2025] were granted extensive John Doe injunctions against AI voice clone platforms, unauthorised AI chat bots and deepfake generators. The claims were made under Section 38B of the Copyright Act and Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules.

Jubin Nautiyal v. John Doe [HC Delhi 2026]: AI platforms were restrained from distributing AI voices.

Salman Khan v. Amit Jani/Makers of Kala Hiran — The fight for legacy [HC Delhi 2026]: Producer Amit Jani announced he was going to create a dramatised film based on the 1998 Blackbuck Poaching issue. Salman Khan filed a claim in the HC to protect his personality rights. In July 2026 the Court issued an interim order to take the film teaser down within 24 hours. However, on the 9th October 2026, Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to Salman Khan as the Producer had claimed he didn't have jurisdiction and that the actor cannot claim personality rights to delete or pre-censor the film as it features public, historic issues and court records.

In August 2025, Eros International re-released the Tamil version of the 2013 hit film "Raanjhanaa". The film featured an AI altered ending. In the original film, Kundan (Dhanush) dies in the ICU in the tragic ending. In the re-release, Kundan's eyes open and he smiles. Everyone else around him has their tears morphed into smiles.

Neither the Director (Aanand L. Rai) or Actor (Dhanush) agreed with this. The director said "it was an abject betrayal and reckless takeover". Dhanush stated on the 4th August 2025 that "it took the soul out of the film". Eros defended their actions by saying that under Section 2(d)(v) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957 the Producer is the only author and owner of the cinematograph film. Directors are not recognised as authors in India so cannot easily claim Section 57 (Author's Moral Right).

Asian News International (India's leading news agency) along with interveners (Indian Music Industry (IMI) & Federation of Indian Publishers) filed a claim against OpenAI in the Delhi HC. OpenAI had scraped and stored their copyrighted works without permission to train their ChatGPT Large Language Models (LLMs).

Decision: In 2026, the Delhi HC refused an interim injunction against OpenAI. The Court applied a two part test (Purpose Test & Fairness Test). The Single Judge found that it was fair to temporarily store the copyrighted works to train the AI models. This was covered under the "Fair Dealing" defence as it was for research (Section 52(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act). The Court also introduced "Public Interest". If they had to ask for permission for millions of sources then it would not be viable to create fundamental AI models (including LLMs in India). Many copyright owners had not used technical methods (robots.txt / crawler blocks).

The Delhi HC had upheld the FIRs that were filed under Sections 67 & 67A of the IT Act (Obscenity & Sexually Explicit Material). This was due to characters using Hindi swearing.

Decision: Justices A.S. Bopanna & P.S. Narasimha quashed the FIRs. The SC made clear the difference between "vulgar/profane" and "obscene". The use of vulgar college slang does not make a web series "obscene" or "sexually explicit" unless it causes lustful, depraved and lascivious thoughts. (Contemporary Community Standards Test) (Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2014).

In February 2025, clips from Samay Raina's YouTube show "India's Got Latent" were causing outrage. Ranveer Allahbadia was making sexual comments about parents. There were multiple FIRs filed in Assam and Maharashtra.

Decision: On the 18th February 2025, the SC issued an interim protection from arrest. They called the comments "products of a perverted mind". They issued a prior restraint that he could not show any shows (However this was relaxed on the 3rd March 2025 due to Article 19(1)(g) as 280 employees relied on his company. However he had to maintain decency and morality). The Bench noted that there was a "lacuna in the law" regarding independent digital/YouTube content. This caused the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) to issue a strong advisory to OTT platforms on the 20th February 2025. They demanded they strictly followed the Code of Ethics and self-certify. In Mid 2026, the SC ordered Samay Raina and co panelists to pay compensation and run disability awareness shows due to insensitive comments towards people with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Takeaways:

• Pre-censorship of theatrical films is constitutional in India only because of the unique audio-visual impact of cinema in a theatre, and only within the strict confines of Article 19(2).
• Udta Punjab highlights that the main role of the CBFC is to certify films, not censor them.
• Indian adults have a right to view mature, hard-hitting and potentially uncomfortable content with an 'A' (Adults Only) certificate, without interference from the CBFC.
• It is not advocating for social evils (drug addiction, caste oppressing, political corruption).

Queries:

• If a film receives an 'A' (18+) rating by the CBFC, why does the board still want to cut visuals/audio (in a very paternal way) in this film? If K.A.Abbas argued in 1970 that cinema halls provide a unique immersive experience that print media doesn't, would this mean we should broaden pre-certification processes within the CBFC? Or if smartphones allow us to stream un-edited content, that we should stop cutting films altogether?
• How can the CBFC determine if they are highlighting a societal problem, as opposed to advocating it? Without using the individual moral views of Advisory Panel members?
• After the FCAT was abolished in 2021, there isn't an expedited independent appeal court. This undermines the safety net that K.A.Abbas used to argue the Cinematograph Act was constitutional.

Key points:

• The State cannot refuse certification to a film due to threats from fringe groups/political organisations to cause protests/riots.
• There must be a close connection between the public order restriction and the film, this includes being an inherent part of the film (spark in a powder keg).
• The State has a constitutional obligation to protect an artists right to free speech from intimidation.
• If the State claims it is 'helpless' in controlling a mob about a film, they are admitting that constitutional order has failed.

Issues:

• Are the State Governments openly violating S. Rangarajan by imposing informal shadow bans/suspend screenings on CBFC certified films based on law and order intelligence?
• Considering the current age of algorithms and social media, are these controversial films already meeting the 1989 criteria of "a spark in the powder keg" due to their ability to cause real-life communal riots in the span of hours through virally popular film trailers?
• Why have the CBFC continually postponed certificates for politically sensitive films (Emergency, Jana Nayagan) after receiving outside representations? Have they become a puppet to pressure groups?
• Should there be statutory financial penalties imposed on State Governments/theater associations by Parliament for blocking the screening of a film with a valid CBFC certificate?

Key Takeaways:

• Indian High Courts have a strong right to personality and publicity (name, image, voice, mannerisms, catchphrases, likeness) under Article 21, common law passing off, and Section 38B of the Copyright Act.
• AI voice cloning (RVC/TTS Models) have now been covered under personality rights in relation to performers in Arijit Singh (2024).
• However, Digital Collectibles (2023) and the Salman Khan (Kala Hiran) case (October 2026) have shown that personality rights are not absolute. They cannot be used to ban satire, parody, commentaries, news reports, and dramatized films.
• John Doe Injunctions (Ashok Kumar) are being used due to a lack of a stand alone personality rights statute in India.

Issues:

• If an A-list star can afford to pay ₹50 Lacs in legal costs to receive a John Doe injunction from the Delhi High Court within 24 hours, what protections are available to a background actor, regional folk singer or dubber who has had their voice cloned by an AI studio?
• As mentioned in the Kala Hiran case (October 2026), if actors can utilise personality rights to prevent unauthorised films being made about their real life controversies, won't it lead to personality rights ruining the investigative documentary and unauthorised biopic genre?
• How can we stop production houses including clauses in actor/singer contracts which force them to accept perpetual AI digital replicas? This makes Arijit Singh and Anil Kapoor irrelevant to new actors with no negotiating power.
• Should the CBFC not allow any film to be certified which utilises an AI voice or digital replica unless a digitally signed consent certificate has been uploaded onto the e-Cinepramaan portal by the producer?

Key Takeaways:

• As per the current Indian jurisprudence (Krishna Kishore Singh), the rights to the personality and privacy of an individual cannot be inherited by any members of their family.
• This creates a huge gap in the law. An AI generative model can be created to recreate dead actors/singers by studios without the need for consent from their estate (unless there is a specific trademark or contract).
• As demonstrated in the Raanjhanaa case in August 2025, because only the Producer is acknowledged as the 'author' of the film in Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act and not the Director, the AI can be used by the studios to change the climax in the film without the consent of the director and lead actor.
• Also, the moral rights of performers (Section 38B) require proof that the changes have been prejudicial to the reputation of the actor, which may prevent the actor from preventing an AI happy ending being added to the film if it is not actually defamatory but is an artistic insult.

Key Questions:

• If the personality rights of individuals are lost after death (Krishna Kishore Singh) then what is stopping a commercial studio from creating an entirely synthetic film with the deceased legend in roles they would never have morally agreed to when alive? Should India create a 50 year posthumous personality right like in California?
• Following the AI ending fiasco in Raanjhanaa (August 2025), should the Parliament change Section 2(d)(v) & Section 57 of the Copyright Act so that the Director has joint authorship and moral rights that cannot be waived?
• If a studio uses generative AI to change the climax of a film that was certified by the CBFC in 2013, is this now considered a new film and therefore must be checked by the CBFC? Should there be a requirement to state that this is AI-Modified Content on screen?
• Should Section 38B be changed so that any form of AI synthesis or change to the narrative of an actor without consent is actionable?

Key Takeaways:

• The Delhi High Court ruled in 2026 that storing copyrighted works to train generative AI models is covered by the Fair Dealing for Research section of the Copyright Act (Section 52(1)(a)(i)).
• The Court highlighted that the Public Interest (preventing the economy of AI development in India from being strangled) was a key consideration.
• The Court put great emphasis on whether the copyright owner had put in place technical measures to opt out (robots.txt/crawler blocks).
• As the ruling is currently being appealed to a Division Bench (notice dated 15th September 2026), the conflict between the creative industry (producers, music labels and writers) in India and AI developers is at its height.

This act regulates film certifications in India. It has been completely overhauled over the last 4 decades with its amendment coming into force in August 2023 (The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023). This act has been put into practice using rules (The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024). These rules were notified on the 15th March 2024.

Section 3: This allows the central government to form a CBFC. It will consist of a chairperson and between 12-45 non-official members who will be appointed by the union government.

Section 4 and 5A: All people wishing to show a film to the public must apply to the CBFC. After the 2023 amendment and new rules came into force, there are now four categories to certify films with (three subcategories to 'UA').

U — Unrestricted public exhibition: Can be seen by anyone.
UA — Unrestricted with parental guidance recommended: This was added by the amendment in 2023 and split into three subcategories: UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+. These match the age restrictions for theatrical films with those in the IT Rules, 2021. These can be seen by anyone but it is not enforced in cinemas like the 'A' category.
A — Restricted to adults: These films cannot be shown on television if they have been given an 'A' or 'S' rating. Therefore, filmmakers must edit their film and reapply to the CBFC for a 'U' or 'UA' (2023 Amendment).
S — Restricted to special class: This can only be viewed by members of a particular profession or class such as doctors or scientists.
Perpetual Validity (Section 5A): The 2023 amendment removed the old rule that CBFC certificates would expire after 10 years. Certificates issued by the CBFC now have no expiry date.

Section 5B(1) and 5B(2): This section outlines the eight grounds in article 19(2). Section 5B(2) allows the central government to create guidelines for certification. These include the 1991 guidelines issued by the CBFC. They require the board to ensure that: there is no glorification of anti-social activities, depiction of methods used by criminals, scenes that are degrading or demeaning to women, unnecessary and avoidable scenes showing violence, cruelty and horror and images/words that are disdainful towards racial, religious or other groups.

Section 6(1): After a ruling by the supreme court in Union of India v K.M. Shankarappa (2000), the executive cannot act as an appellate authority. Therefore, the central government no longer have the power to overturn films that have already been certified (2023 Amendment). However, they can suspend films in an emergency under section 5E and 13.

Section 6AA and 6AB and 7(1A): Added in 2023 to tackle digital piracy. Section 6AA makes it illegal to illegally record a film in a cinema (camcording). Section 6AB also makes it illegal to show or transmit a film without authorisation on electronic/digital networks. If these are breached you will receive a prison sentence of between 3 months and 3 years. A fine of between Rs. 300,000 and 5% of the audited gross production cost of the film (Section 7(1A)).

100% Digital Certification (e-Cinepramaan): All applications must be submitted online in entirety. This includes payment of fees, submission of digital copies and receipt of an e-certificate with a QR Code. This removes the need for a physical entity altogether and reduces statutory time frames.

Gender Inclusion: At least 1/3rd of the members of the CBFC Board will be female. It is preferred that 50% of the Examining and Revising Advisory Panels will be female.

Accessibility: Feature films must include accessibility features (Closed Captioning/Subtitles, Audio Descriptions) for hearing and visually impaired persons in a progressive manner as notified by the MIB.

Priority Screening: A priority screening window will be provided to help filmmakers with pressing deadlines or festival requirements. However, importantly there is nothing in the 2024 Rules to regulate AI generated scripts, AI actors or the disclosure of deepfakes.

Copyright Act is the main piece of intellectual property legislation covering the film industry, music and performance.

Section 2(d)(v) & Section 17: The author of a cinematograph film can only refer to the producer. Unlike the UK and EU Film Directors cannot be co-authors of a film. However, authors of lyrics and music have their own copyright in their work under the 2012 Amendments.

Section 2(d)(vi): For all literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, that are computer generated the author will be deemed to be the person that caused the work to be made. Due to Indian copyright law (Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, 2008) requiring a 'modicum of human creation, ingenuity and judgment', AI works that are completely autonomous and lack significant human involvement into their creation face serious issues in registering for copyright. Furthermore, this section does not cover cinematograph films or sound recordings!

Section 38 & Section 38A: Performers (Actors, Singers, Musicians, Dancers) have exclusive rights to record, reproduce and communicate their performance for 50 years. They also have an irrevocable right to claim royalties for using commercially outside of a theatrical cinema hall.

Section 38B (The Anti Deepfake Clause): Every performer has the right to be identified as the performer of their performance and to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification of their performance that would be prejudicial to their reputation.

Theatrical cinema is governed under the Cinematograph Act but OTT, YouTube & AI intermediaries fall under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Part III of the IT Rules 2021:
Content Ratings: OTT platforms (publishers of online curated content) must provide self-assigned ratings (U, U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+ & A), prominently indicate content descriptors such as violence, nudity, drugs & language and utilise strict parental controls for U/A 13+ and above, and accurate age verification processes for 'A' rated content.

Three Tier Grievance Mechanism:
• Tier 1 Self-regulation: The publisher shall appoint an in-house Grievance Officer (resident in India) who will address the concerns of viewers within 15 days.
• Tier 2 Self-regulation: The publishers will constitute an Independent body (with retired Supreme Court/High Court Judge or Eminent Person as Chairperson) which will have powers to warn, request apologies, change content ratings and request amendments. This body must be registered with the MIB such as the Digital Publisher Content Grievances Council (DPCGC) under IAMAI or Digital Media Content Regulatory Council (DMCRC) under IBF.
• Tier 3 Regulation by the Central Government: The Inter Departmental Committee (IDC) will be constituted by the MIB (with members from MIB, MeitY, MHA, Law, Women & Child Development, etc.) and shall hear appeals from Tier 2 or referrals from the MIB. They can recommend blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act.

The IT Amendment Rules, 2026 (February 10, 2026 Notified, February 20, 2026 Effective):
Landmark regulation under the MeitY focusing specifically on AI Deepfakes.
• Rule 2(wa): Defines what constitutes Synthetically Generated Information ("SGI"). Any audio, visual or audio-visual Information generated, created, altered or manipulated by using a computer resource to make it appear genuine, real and authentic or similar to that of a natural person or real-life event. This excludes basic text based AI outputs.
• Permanent Meta Data & Label: Intermediaries providing or generating SGI must include permanent meta-data (hashes/watermarks indicating the SGI source and time) and a visible label (such as AI Generated/Synthetic Created) that cannot be removed without impacting the media.

Reduced Takedown Timeframes:
• Complaints about Unlawful Content: Reduced to 36 hours (previously 72 hours).
• Orders of Court or Takedown Notice from Government/Sahyog Portal: Reduced to 3 hours (previously 36 hours).
• Non-consensual Intimate Images/Deepfake Nudity/Impersonation: Reduced to 2 hours (previously 24 hours).
• Complaints from Users: Reduced to 7 days (previously 15 days).

Safe Harbour (Section 79): If you fail to comply with reduced timeframes or labelling requirements, you lose your protection under section 79 Safe Harbour and become liable for any unlawful content uploaded. You are allowed to use automated filters.

Section 196 BNS (Previously IPC 153A): Promoting disharmony between different groups of people based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community (also applying to electronic media). Max 3-5 years imprisonment.

Section 294 & 296 BNS (Previously IPC 292/294): Selling, distributing or displaying of Obscene Objects/Electronic Materials. Max 2-5 years imprisonment.

Section 299 BNS (Previously IPC 295A): Deliberately offending the religious sentiments of any group of citizens by insulting their religion (often used through multiple FIRs to target filmmakers, actors & OTT shows). Max 3 years imprisonment.

Section 319(2) BNS & Section 66D IT Act: Cheating by Impersonation. Cheating by pretending to be someone else (real or imaginary) using AI voice or video Deepfakes. Max 3-5 years imprisonment.

Section 336(4) BNS (Damage to Reputation by Forgery) & Section 356 BNS: Creating fake Electronic Documents/Records (Deepfakes) with the intention to damage someone's reputation. This section also updates Defamation laws. Max 2 years imprisonment with fine/community service.

Section 353 BNS: Publishing and circulating false information or rumours using electronic media which could cause public alarm or incite between communities. Max 3 years imprisonment.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023: Sets strict rules to process Digital Personal Data (data that includes biometric data — voice & facial recognition of identifiable living persons). However Section 3(c)(ii) states that if the Data Principal has made the Data publicly available or legally obliged to make it so then they are exempt from this law. This has created a major loophole for AI companies to exploit and claim they are not breaking the DPDPA by Deepfaking films and interviews of actors that have been publicly released.

Controversy: The Kerala Story (directors: Sudipto Sen) was released on 5th May 2023. A teaser was released which stated that 32,000 women from Kerala were tricked into joining Isis. However, the makers were challenged in the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court due to there being no evidence for the claims. The makers changed the teaser to say only 3 women. They also agreed to include a disclaimer to the film saying that it was a "fictionalised dramatisation" and that there was no real data behind the numbers. However, the film was banned in West Bengal due to public order concerns under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act. Theaters in Tamil Nadu also placed an unofficial shadow ban.

Legal Journey (2023 – August 21st 2026): In May 2023 the Supreme Court issued a stay on the ban imposed in West Bengal and asked Tamil Nadu to ensure security was provided to the theaters. They reminded the court of previous cases such as S. Rangarajan and Padmaavat regarding the inability of state governments to claim they are banning films due to public order concerns if they have been given a certificate by the CBFC.

Supreme Court Decision (August 21st 2026): On August 21st 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi decided to dismiss the batch of petitions (Qurban Ali v. Union of India) as they were futile as the film had already been released in theatres and OTT. The producers also decided to drop their petition regarding West Bengal. However, when lawyers requested that the court should issue guidelines to stop the CBFC certifying films that may be encouraging hate speech, the court specifically did not make a decision on this matter. CJI Surya Kant said that they could submit a full writ petition on the matter to gain guidelines. Justice Bagchi also stated "This litigation has to wait for another movie...another movie that is controversial, we will go into that question."

Importance For Delegates: As of October 2026, the Supreme Court have not made a decision on whether they want to impose guidelines on the courts and CBFC to make strict guidelines to verify films that encourage hate speech.

Controversy: Emergency is a film written and starring Kangana Ranaut (Actress/BJP Member of Parliament) about PM Indira Gandhi, the emergency (1975-1977), operation blue star and Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. It was due to be released on 6th September 2024 but received strong criticism from the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and other Sikh organisations for misrepresenting history and stereotyping.

Legal Battle: The CBFC issued an automated email on 29th August 2024 stating that they had issued a certificate for the film (UA) with some small cuts. However, the CBFC would not issue the signed certificate as they wanted to look at new representations from the Sikh groups. The co-producer, Zee Entertainment went to the Bombay High Court claiming that the CBFC were illegally holding up the film for political reasons in advance of the state elections. The CBFC Revising committee required 13 cuts to the film including cutting out certain violent scenes. They also wanted the filmmakers to provide evidence to back-up quotes from President Richard Nixon and Winston Churchill. After 4 months the film was released on 17th January 2025. However, the film was then taken to court in April 2025 by journalist Coomi Kapoor for defamation and breach of contract for misleading representation of her book.

Importance For Delegates: Emergency shows that the idea that only films from opposition parties will be blocked by the CBFC is incorrect. Any film that could cause backlash based on identity will be frozen by the CBFC.

Controversy: L2: Empuraan, a Malayalam blockbuster directed by Prithviraj Sukumaran and starring Mohanlal, was released on 27th March 2025 after receiving the CBFC clearance with some cuts. This film showed the violence during the anti-communal riots in 2002 that were part of the backstory of the protagonist as well as had some negative depictions about the central probe agency. Within the first 48 hours post release, political commentators from the right wing as well as social media handles began a campaign to boycott the film as well as creating outrage around it.

Re-Certification: Although the film didn't receive any revocation of certificate by the CBFC as per Section 5E, the producers yielded to the political pressure and re-certified the film voluntarily. The film had 24 cuts (2 min 8 secs) done by 2nd April 2025. These cuts included: Changing the "timeline" card from "2002 - India" to "A few years ago", silencing parts of the dialogues, changing the name of the antagonist from Balraj Bajrangi to Baldev and cutting 29 seconds of the riot violence against women.

Why it Matters: Empuraan has been a terrifying representation of censorship in 2025-2026. This film self-censored itself after the release due to the political pressure and the use of the CBFC re-certification.

Phule (April 2025): A biography on 19th century social reformists Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule by filmmaker Ananth Mahadevan had its release postponed from 11th April to 25th April 2025 because of objections from the upper caste organisations. The CBFC asked for the changes to the film. This included removing all caste based words such as "Mahar", "Mang", and "Peshwai" as well as changing the image of a man holding a broom. However, Dalit and Bahujan Scholars questioned how the filmmakers could even create a film on anti-caste activists when the CBFC are erasing caste oppression.

Udaipur Files (July 2025): Based on the horrible murder of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur in 2022, this film received writ petitions in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court in July 2025. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind filed a writ regarding the anti-communal hate speech. This was supported by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who mentioned that it was "cinematic vandalism". One of the accused in the NIA trial filed a writ regarding this film impacting their article 21 right to fair trial. Although the Delhi High Court did approve for it to be screened privately and stayed the release on 10th July 2025, they advised the Centre to review the film after the CBFC had removed several offensive scenes. This has resulted in a huge legal issue relating to article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression through cinema) and article 21 (right to fair trial).

Controversy: Jana Nayagan, directed by H.Vinoth stars Tamil superstar Vijay (who would go on to become a full time politician in the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) he founded ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections) as the protagonist. It was set to be released on 9th January 2026. However, the film was abruptly stopped from receiving a certificate after the initial viewing on 19th December 2025. The makers had agreed to cuts which granted them a UA 16+. However, the CBFC stopped certification and sent it to the Revising Committee as they felt there were sensitive references to the Indian Army and religion.

High Court and Supreme Court (Jan-July 2026): On 9th January 2026 a Single Judge of the Madras High Court ruled that the CBFC must issue the UA 16+ certificate. However, within hours the CBFC filed an appeal. The Supreme Court (Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih) ruled on 14th January that they would not interfere with the Division Bench proceedings, despite arguments made by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the producers, regarding the fact that film is a perishable good. The Madras High Court Division Bench ruled on 27th January 2026 in favour of the CBFC's writ appeal, therefore cancelling the Single Judge ruling. On the 30th January 2026 the CBFC filed a caveat in the Supreme Court. Due to the lengthy process to resolve this matter, the producers decided to withdraw their writ petition to Justice P.T. Asha on 10th February 2026. They had to accept the slow process of the CBFC Revising Committee. This resulted in constant new modification lists being given throughout July 2026. This caused a multi-hundred crore film to be delayed for more than 6 months.

Controversy: Anubhav Sinha's Netflix series on the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 included the use of the actual codenames used by the hijackers during the incident ("Bhola" and "Shankar"). This was documented in official MEA statements from January 2000. However, this caused a massive amount of outrage on social media as people claimed the series were using Hindu names intentionally to cover up the terrorists. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting called Netflix India's Content Head on 3rd September 2024 and they had to change the Disclaimer at the beginning of the series to show the actual names of the 5 hijackers.