It’s not just Homebound.
The latest entries in the long list of films pinned on the chopping board of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) include a take on the life and ideologies of Sardar Patel, a controversial version of the communal violence in Bengal before partition and a courtroom drama sequel helmed by superstar Akshay Kumar. Ironically, both are made by the board’s own members.
Sources said the board kept Vivek Agnihotri’s The Bengal Files hanging fire over demands for multiple changes, such as replacing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s photo in a police station with one of Mother Teresa.
One of the key objections was to the name of a pivotal character: Sita Mandal, a Dalit journalist who went missing, feared abducted by an MLA from a minority community. Sita had to be renamed Gita for the CBFC to relent and issue an ‘A’ certificate on June 25. The film was released on September 5.
There’s more — and the cuts are telling:
* The board told Kerala High Court that it objected to the naming of a rape victim as Janaki, which is another name for Sita, in the Malayalam movie Janaki Vs State of Kerala. The movie finally was certified as Janaki .V vs State of Kerala this March.
* Exasperated by the delay and a list of objections to “random sequences” in his Man of Steel Sardar, CBFC member Mahesh Bhuta communicated his displeasure to the board, said sources. Soon after, the movie was certified this July. Bhuta, when contacted, declined to comment.
Story continues below this ad
* Following the spat, sources said, CBFC asked Bhuta after three years to head a Revising Committee (RC) to evaluate Akshay Kumar-starrer Jolly LLB 3 after it was red-flagged. Post-screening, Bhuta apparently persuaded the RC members to clear the film without major changes.
Subsequently, CBFC sources said, chairperson Prasoon Joshi affected a number of edits, such as muting words, modifying disclaimers, logos and locations, and toning down a sequence where policemen assault an elderly man. Joshi did not respond to requests for comment on his intervention.
Akshay Kumar, production sources claimed, was “not amused but knew better than to confront, given his experience with the CBFC in 2023 for Oh My God 2”. a film on sex education that ended up with an A certificate. Eventually, Jolly LLB 3 was certified ‘UA16+’ on September 2. Film’s director Subhash Kapoor did not respond to requests for comment.
* This April, Ananth Mahadevan’s Phule, based on the lives of social reformers Jyotirao Govindrao Phule and Savitribai Phule, was censored over caste references before the CBFC issued a ‘U’ certificate with at least a dozen modifications. Apart from caste terms, the “tweaks” included visuals of “a man carrying a broom,” and modification of the line “3,000 saal purani gulami” to “kai saal purani ghulami.”
Story continues below this ad
Some of the well-known commercial films that have been caught in the censor’s scissors this year include Malayalam movie Empuraan (24 changes, including removal of references to the Gujarat riots and NIA). The Bollywood hit Sitaare Zameen Par had also faced challenges with the CBFC initially suggesting several cuts, which were not accepted by the film’s producer Aamir Khan.
A Revising Committee reviewed and recommended changes, including replacing a few terms and adding a quote from Prime Minister Narendra Modi after the opening disclaimer, paving the way for its release.
A number of filmmakers told The Indian Express that “arbitrariness in censorship” has increased over the years. They underlined how the Cinematograph Act has not been reformed since 1952 and recommendations of the Shyam Benegal committee have not been “meaningfully” implemented.
In 2016, the committee had proposed a shift from content modification to age-based certification, introduction of age wise sub-categories, such as ‘UA12’ and ‘UA15+’, and transforming the CBFC’s role from issuing certificates to offering guidance.
Story continues below this ad
On implementing the Benegal committee’s recommendations, an I&B Ministry spokesperson said: “The Committee strongly advocated for age-based certification rather than binary categories like ‘U’ or ‘A’. The 2023 Act introduced additional sub-categories (eg UA 7+, UA 13+ UA 16+), aligning film ratings with audience maturity.”
“The 2014 Rules incorporate the (committee’s) recommendations to include subject domain experts on examining panels. This ensures informed evaluation of evaluation of sensitive, technical, or culturally complex themes, reducing arbitrariness in certification. Similarly, the mandated one-third representation of women on Boards and Panels also fulfils the Committee’s demand for better inclusivity and diversity in decision-making bodies,” the spokesperson added.
