Editorial-30/07/2026
Hiding the scissors: On the Central Board of Film Certification
Introduction
The editorial “Hiding the scissors: On the Central Board of Film Certification” examines a recurring tension in Indian democracy: the conflict between artistic freedom and state regulation. Its central argument is that the Central Board of Film Certification, or CBFC, often goes beyond certification and drifts into censorship, thereby undermining both legal procedure and constitutional liberty. Although the board is legally meant to classify films for public exhibition, in practice it is frequently accused of demanding cuts, delaying releases, and using opaque standards that encourage self-censorship among filmmakers.
This issue is important because cinema is not merely entertainment. In India, films are a powerful cultural and political medium that shape public memory, social values, and debates on identity, history, gender, religion, and power. When a regulatory body exercises excessive discretion over such a medium, the consequences extend beyond the film industry and enter the domain of democracy, freedom of expression, and constitutional governance. The editorial therefore uses the CBFC controversy to ask a larger question: should a democratic state regulate cinema through transparent certification, or control it through hidden censorship?
The metaphor of “hiding the scissors” is especially powerful. It suggests that censorship has not disappeared; instead, it has become less visible and more bureaucratic. The board may no longer act through overt public bans in every case, but the effect can still be the same if filmmakers are compelled to accept arbitrary cuts or face delays and uncertainty. In that sense, the editorial is not only about cinema, but about how institutions can quietly expand their power beyond the mandate given to them by law.
1. CBFC: legal role versus actual practice
The CBFC is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, its function is to certify films for public exhibition. The law does not create a general power to rewrite films according to moral preferences, political convenience, or subjective discomfort. Certification is supposed to mean classification and regulation within defined legal limits, not artistic substitution by a regulatory authority.
However, the editorial argues that the CBFC often behaves as though it possesses a broad censorship mandate. Instead of simply determining the suitable audience category for a film, it frequently suggests or insists on deletions and modifications. These interventions may range from removal of dialogue, scenes, or references to changes that affect the film’s narrative integrity. The result is that the board’s role shifts from certification to editorial control, which is not what the founding statute intended.
This legal mismatch is central to the controversy. A certifying authority is supposed to work within clear standards, but when discretion becomes too wide, the line between regulation and censorship disappears. The editorial therefore presents the CBFC as an example of regulatory overreach, where the institution’s powers appear to have expanded through practice rather than through legislative amendment.
2. Constitutional dimension: Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)
The most important constitutional issue here is freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Cinema, like books, theatre, journalism, and digital content, is a form of expression protected by the Constitution. Of course, the right is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
The editorial’s concern is not that the state should never regulate films, but that restrictions must be reasonable, proportionate, and grounded in law. If restrictions are vague, inconsistent, or driven by political pressure, they stop being “reasonable” in the constitutional sense. The danger arises when the CBFC uses broad moral or political anxieties to interfere with content without clearly showing why the interference is necessary under Article 19(2).
This matters because constitutional rights are not meant to depend on the personal preferences of officials. A democratic republic must ensure that speech is restricted only through fair and reviewable processes. When the board’s actions appear arbitrary, the burden shifts from the state to the creator. The filmmaker must then predict what might offend, what might delay certification, and what might trigger objections. This creates a climate of uncertainty that weakens the practical enjoyment of free speech.
3. Hidden censorship and self-censorship
One of the strongest points of the editorial is that censorship is no longer always visible as an open ban. Instead, it often takes subtler forms: warnings, “suggested” cuts, prolonged certification, oral objections, and pressure to conform. Even if the state does not formally prohibit a film, the uncertainty around approval may make producers voluntarily dilute their work. This is what makes the censorship “hidden” but effective.
Self-censorship is particularly damaging because it changes artistic behavior before any official action occurs. Filmmakers begin to anticipate the board’s objections and remove sensitive material in advance. Over time, this narrows the range of stories that are told on screen. Topics involving caste conflict, communal violence, state violence, sexuality, dissent, or controversial history may be softened, disguised, or avoided altogether. In this way, a regulatory body can shape public discourse indirectly without issuing a formal ban on every sensitive subject.
The editorial’s concern is therefore deeper than one film or one board decision. It is about the chilling effect created by unpredictable state power. When a creative community starts to fear the regulator more than it trusts the law, democratic culture becomes less open. This is why cinema censorship is not just an industry issue; it is a free speech issue and a public sphere issue.
4. Transparency and accountability deficits
A major administrative criticism in the editorial is opacity. The board’s decision-making process is often not transparent enough for meaningful scrutiny. Filmmakers may not receive clear, detailed, or consistent reasons for objections. In some situations, the process is even experienced as informal, where the real pressure comes through conversations, delays, or non-written expectations rather than through a fully reasoned order.
This matters because transparency is a core principle of good governance. Regulatory power must be visible, explainable, and reviewable. If a body can alter speech without adequately explaining its reasons, accountability weakens. In a constitutional democracy, the public should be able to see why a film was cut, what legal standard was applied, and whether the decision was proportionate. Hidden or vague decision-making enables arbitrary action.
The broader governance problem is that opacity encourages power without responsibility. When official reasons are not clearly recorded or publicly accessible, the possibility of challenge is reduced. The affected party may comply simply to avoid loss of time and money. Thus, what appears to be administrative convenience can actually become structural coercion. The editorial uses the CBFC to highlight how bureaucratic discretion, when unchecked, can become a form of silent censorship.
5. Institutional overreach and political sensitivity
Another key theme is political sensitivity. Films that touch upon history, religion, identity, protests, state violence, or foreign policy may be treated not merely as artistic works but as politically risky texts. The editorial suggests that the CBFC’s interventions can sometimes reflect the anxieties of the political environment rather than clear legal tests. That makes the board vulnerable to charges of ideological or majoritarian bias.
This is especially problematic because a certifying authority must be institutionally neutral. Its job is not to protect the government from embarrassment or to shield audiences from difficult ideas. Its role is to ensure compliance with law while preserving space for expression. If the board becomes politically overcautious, it may prevent legitimate artistic exploration of contentious subjects.
Recent controversies around film clearances and refusals show why this issue continues to matter. Public debate often turns on whether the board is applying law or imposing a moral-political filter. Even when the government claims the process is time-bound and transparent, the public perception of arbitrariness can persist if filmmakers continue to report pressure, delays, or unexplained demands.
6. The shift to digital systems: helpful but not sufficient
The government has highlighted the e-Cinepramaan portal and the digitisation of film certification as steps toward transparency, efficiency, and time-bound processing. Official information says the system has improved workflow, reduced timelines, and made certification more monitored and paperless. In principle, this is an important reform because digital processing can reduce delays and make the procedure more traceable.
However, the editorial’s core argument still remains valid: digitisation alone cannot fix a problem of excessive discretion. A faster process is not necessarily a fairer one if the underlying standards remain vague or if the board’s role continues to be interpreted expansively. In other words, technology can improve administration, but it cannot substitute for legal restraint.
So the real reform question is not only whether certification is online, but whether the board’s substantive powers are limited by law and exercised with consistency. A digital portal may make the process trackable, but it cannot by itself guarantee freedom from overreach. The board must also be disciplined by clear criteria, reasoned orders, and judicial review.
7. Need for reform
The editorial implicitly points to a reform agenda. First, the distinction between certification and censorship must be clarified in practice. The CBFC should classify films according to age and content, not rewrite them to suit subjective preferences. Second, reasons for objections should be recorded clearly and made accessible, so that filmmakers and the public can understand the legal basis of decisions.
Third, the standards for intervention must be narrow and objective. Broad phrases such as decency, morality, or public order should not become convenient excuses for suppressing discomforting ideas. Fourth, the appeals or review mechanism must be robust enough to correct overreach. If a board’s decision is unfair, there must be an effective and timely path for challenge.
Fifth, the board should be institutionally insulated from partisan pressure. Members should be selected and guided in a manner that reflects expertise, not political loyalty. Since cinema is both art and public communication, the body regulating it should display sensitivity to artistic form and constitutional limits. The editorial therefore seeks not abolition of regulation, but reform of regulatory culture.
Conclusion
The editorial “Hiding the scissors: On the Central Board of Film Certification” is ultimately a warning against hidden censorship in democratic institutions. It argues that the CBFC must remain a certification body governed by statute, not an unofficial censor guided by political caution or moral arbitrariness. When a regulator exceeds its legal role, it undermines both freedom of expression and trust in public institutions.
The larger lesson is that democracy is weakened not only by open suppression, but also by bureaucratic overreach that works quietly through delays, ambiguity, and pressure. For cinema, this means the state should protect lawful restrictions while preserving the widest possible space for creativity. For governance, it means institutions must act transparently, within their mandate, and with accountability.
Download Pdf
