For Panjab '95 Director, Dealing With Censor Officials Was Straight Out of Kafka

The Wire

10-07-2025

Tatsam Mukherjee
4 minutes ago
Honey Trehan's film has not been released for over three years because of the never ending demand for cuts.
Poster of Panjab '95, directed by Honey Trehan.
Walking away from director Honey Trehan after a 90-minute conversation on the fate of his film, Panjab '95 – I couldn't help but view him as Nishikant Kamat's protagonist from (2006). Kamat's film tells the story of a common man – fed up with the ways of the 'system', who takes matters in his own hands. A grounded version of a vigilante film, what's stayed with me after two decades — is the film's righteous anger.
It's a feeling I had often, during my conversation with Trehan, a few days after he held a private screening in Bengaluru.
Initially scheduled for its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) 2023 – Trehan's film has been kicked around for almost three years by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC). Trehan tried to humour them for a long time, before finally giving up. And now he will tell practically anyone who will listen about his long dire battle with the censorship powers.
Set in the aftermath of Punjab's most tumultuous decade, Trehan's film follows the efforts of a meek banker called Jaswant Singh Khalra (Diljit Dosanjh). Searching for a family friend who is reported 'missing', Khalra uncovers a string of similar cases (running into hundreds) – which threaten to expose the corruption at the heart of Punjab Police of the time. Khalra was abducted from his home – and the investigation of his disappearance becomes the rest of the film. With a stacked cast including names like Kanwaljeet Singh, Suvinder Vicky, Geetika Vidya Ohlyan, Arjun Rampal among at least half a dozen sparkling performances – Trehan's film might be one of the most sobering Hindi film experiences I have had in the last few years.
Going around as the spokesman for his stuck-in-purgatory film, one gets the sense that Trehan is well-oiled with his responses by now. It is something I gleaned from his response to my first question, which went on for about 20 minutes (barring a few interjections). Two words come up repeatedly – 'uneducated' and ' gundagardi ' (hooliganism) during the conversation.
Edited excerpts:
I first heard about Panjab '95 when it got pulled from TIFF 2023 in Toronto. Can you explain the chain of events till then?
The film was given 21 cuts when we first applied for a censor certificate. We asked for reasons – there was no response. We approached the Bombay high court, because that's the only recourse we have. You've done your gundagardi and removed the FCAT (a former higher body of appeal if a filmmaker was unhappy with the modifications suggested by CBFC).
We applied for the censor certificate in December 2022, and we approached the courts six months later, when there was no response from the CBFC to the cut list. Also, who gave the authority to the censor board to alter narrative points in a film. There's a scene in the film that mentions riots in Trilokpuri, the R.O (Regional Office) had the audacity to ask me if we could change Trilokpuri to Khanpuri.
Once the hearing began in Bombay high court, their counsels changed three times as the hearings progressed. Things kept coasting from one hearing to the next, where they kept repeating the same things. The fourth counsel, who came to argue the case, hadn't even watched the film. The intoxication of power is such, everything goes because they're representing the CBFC. He was posing questions after which the judge inferred he hadn't watched the film. He was then advised to first watch the film, before presenting his fears about it.
If things were looking good, then why did you withdraw the case?
On the day, the lordship told the fourth counsel to watch the film, he asked the film to be submitted to the court as well. Somewhere in the second week of July, 2023, we got the news of the TIFF selection. In the next hearing, the counsel came to the court after watching the film. He announced, 'Your honour, I watched the film last night, and had trouble sleeping after watching it.' The judge responded, 'My learned friend, you're absolutely correct!' I was in court that day, and I became nervous. The counsel argued saying, 'Precisely, my point sir! The moment people watch this film – it will provoke separatist, militancy sentiments. There will be a law and order situation.'
The judge responded by saying: 'Can you please point out the scene that is referring to the Khalistani movement?' The counsel said – 'No sir, there's no such scene. But we assume that this will be the takeaway of the audience from the film.' The lordship asked the counsel to explain to him since when courts argued cases based on assumptions.
It's after this, I feel, is when the CBFC's counsel dropped the ball. He said it's not just the CBFC but the Information & Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry also has a problem with the film. The judge asked, 'Who gave the film to the I&B ministry?' The whole point of the CBFC is to be an independent body.
'The CBFC's decision should not be coordinated with the Govt of India. Otherwise, what's the use of the CBFC?' the judge asked. The counsel said he'd like to withdraw two objections. I think the judge said something to the effect of – is this a negotiation? I will pass my verdict on all 21 objections raised by the CBFC. They're either all valid, or they will all be rejected.
The counsel had no argument. The judge said that he'll give his verdict on the matter in the next hearing, which would be held the next day. The counsel requested it be pushed by one more day, since he had another matter to attend to. The judge conceded.
And then?
The court adjourned around 4.30 PM on that day, and at 6.30 PM, my producer Ronnie Screwvala got a call from Delhi. He was called for a meeting. The bullet points of the meeting were – the makers will withdraw the case from the court; they will make the 21 cuts suggested by the CBFC; and the CBFC will give us a certificate.
These were the terms offered. Ronnie called me after the meeting, he informed me we're not fighting this case anymore. It was a big blow for me, because we had practically won in my eyes. I said, 'This is not done!'; to which he said – he typed a message to me – 'Honey, you're not understanding. WE'RE NOT FIGHTING THIS CASE, AND WE'RE NOT OPENING IN TORONTO,' he wrote in caps.
I said 'F*** it' and incorporated those changes. The film was seen by the revising committee, and 21 cuts became 37 cuts. Ronnie said we should incorporate them. 37 became 45.
By then, I'd lost my mind. I told Ronnie: 'This is arm-twisting.' Then it became 85 cuts. Till now, the chairperson has not seen the film.
How do you know the chairperson had not seen the film?
I'll tell you the funny thing, the first time we submitted the film to the CBFC, they stopped the screening after 30 minutes, saying we should be applying to the censor board of Punjabi films, because the film was primarily in Punjabi. Which was ludicrous because Arjun Rampal's character speaks in Hindi, and Diljit's character speaks in Hinjabi, more than Punjabi. We had to argue and make a case for them to watch the film. They did, and said that they had a few observations which they were forwarding to the Revising Committee.
The Revising Committee watched the film and said, 'This is rubbish! None of this ever happened in India!' They asked me for supporting documentation that proves this film is based on true events. I didn't want to submit print-outs of the Wikipedia pages, I wanted to share my research dossier, which was based on court records available. It was around 1800 pages – and when we submitted this, they said, 'Who is going to read so much? Why don't you highlight the information related to the 21 objections we have made in the dossier and re-submit?'
We printed out the dossier for each of the 13 members of the revising committee, highlighted it, and they began watching the film again. I was summoned once again after the film, and then they said that the cuts seemed reasonable. And that they had some observations of their own too. They would communicate to me in a few days. The Revising Committee head said to me, 'You tell me one thing, Mr Trehan. In today's time, who speaks the truth so loudly?'
I want to add here that not everyone in the CBFC hated the film. Many of them reached out to me and said they were moved by my film. They said: 'We loved the film, but in bureaucracy our hands are tied.'
It was after the sixth version of the DCP, with 85 cuts, we were told that the chairperson would finally be watching the film. We were hopeful that we would get the certificate. An executive producer from RSVP (producer of Panjab '95) and I are sitting there. After a few hours, a peon came out and said ' Sahab has left for the day, he said he will communicate over email.' We knew something was wrong as we were leaving.
After that, radio silence. Then we got 16 more points, which resulted in 37 more cuts. The final number came to around 127 cuts… and this is when I stopped co-operating. I said I will not be making a single cut. Ronnie is being pressured to release the film (with 127 cuts) – but I've made it clear to them that I will not have my credit in a film like that. Diljit (Dosanjh) has also made it clear that he will withdraw his name from the credits.
I have proof of when the chairperson wrote to Ronnie: 'Why don't you write off this film?' That's when Ronnie told me that they don't want Panjab '95 to come out. Things seem to have changed recently, where they're asking him to submit the film with 127 cuts, and they'll issue the certificate.
Was this the point when you realised you had to go public?
Yes, when they issued 127 cuts. I thought the gundagardi was beyond acceptable.
When they kept saying that my film could create a law and order problem, I actually believed it for a bit. Maybe I was too close to the film. So I showed the film to the SGPC (Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee) and the Akal Takht – two religious groups in Punjab. They were very moved by the film. Then I showed it to the lawyers of Mr Khalra. I thought maybe I should show it to people smarter than me – if they could tell me what was wrong with the film.
I'm yet to find someone, who gave me a compelling argument about what they found unacceptable about the film.
How do you rate the ability of the CBFC?
It's the guiding powers above them (members) — they're uneducated, compromised. The CBFC is the government's backdoor to controlling the narrative. They will only allow films that reaffirm their propaganda. I was disturbed by the contradictory feedback, where members personally reached out to me about loving the film, but I was still running from pillar to post – catering to the whims of those in power. You have so many films preaching your propaganda, at least let one film from the other team come out!
If it creates a law and order problem, or if someone takes offence to anything, why don't they go to court?
What was the Punjab Police's response? I'm assuming you needed the permissions of the local police while shooting?
I was shooting in Tarn Taran, and I met the DSP. When I told him that the film was about Jaswant Singh Khalra, he let out a wry smile and asked, 'Then the villains must be Punjab police?'
I wanted his permission, so I didn't say anything and smiled. The DSP took a deep breath and said: 'He's too great a person. His martyrdom is bigger than anything. I'm glad you're making a film on him.' I've thanked the Punjab police in my film for being so gracious.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.