Latest news with #RevisingCommittee
Pink Villa
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Pink Villa
CBFC trims Kiara Advani's bikini scene in War 2 by 9 seconds; Reason revealed
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has instructed the makers of War 2 to trim Kiara Advani's bikini scene by nine seconds. The cut affects the song Aavan Jaavan, which had gained attention for Kiara's first on-screen bikini appearance. According to reports, the CBFC's Examining Committee raised objections to certain visuals and dialogues. The makers then approached the Revising Committee, which issued a U/A16+ certificate after suggesting several changes. These included removing 9 seconds from Kiara's pool sequence and replacing an 'objectionable dialogue' with a toned-down version. An 'obscene gesture' was also deleted. The censor board further directed the team to reduce all sensual images by 50 percent. While the edits impacted the Aavan Jaavan song, no changes were made to the film's action sequences. Why was Kiara Advani's scene cut? A report by Bollywood Hungama stated that the CBFC recommended cutting about 10 minutes from the film before final approval. Among the edits was Kiara's much-discussed bikini scene with Hrithik Roshan. The song had already created buzz online, with fans praising her toned physique. Kiara Advani reportedly followed a strict fitness regime to prepare for the sequence. Her nutritionist, Nicole, told Pinkvilla: 'She didn't want shortcuts. She wasn't looking for a crash diet or a quick fix. She wanted something sustainable, holistic and something that made her feel strong.' Nicole also shared that Kiara's diet included protein-rich meals to help her achieve her goal. Here's how long War 2 will run in theatres Following the changes, War 2 has a final runtime of 171.44 minutes, which is about 2 hours and 51 minutes. Earlier reports mentioned that the film's original runtime was 179.49 minutes. The makers approached the CBFC on August 8, 2025, for clearance and received the go-ahead after making the suggested cuts and mutes across six audio and visual segments. War 2, starring Hrithik Roshan, Jr NTR, and Kiara Advani, is scheduled to release on August 14, 2025. The action thriller will face box office competition from Rajinikanth's Coolie. ALSO READ: What is the age difference between Hrithik Roshan and Saba Azad? A look at their 11-year gap and relationship timeline
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Express Film Club screens Jaaved Jaaferi's Inn Galiyon Mein, director talks about how censor board refused to pass it
This Monday, the Express Film Club by SCREEN continued its monthly tradition of spotlighting lesser-known but cinematically profound films with a screening of Inn Galiyon Mein, a light-hearted romantic comedy directed by Avinash Das. The screening took place at the India Habitat Centre, Delhi. The film features a huge ensemble a cast led by Jaaved Jaaferi, Vivaan Shah, Avantika Dasani (in her film debut), Sushant Singh, Istiyak Khan, Suniel Shetty, Raveena Tandon, and Veenay Bhasskar. The evening kicked off with noted film critic Shubhra Gupta introducing the film. The screening was followed by a lively Q&A session attended by the filmmaker himself, Avinash Das. After the screening, Gupta praised the film for its heartfelt storytelling and emotionally resonant tone. She singled out performances by Vivaan Shah and Avantika Dasani, noting their nuanced portrayals. Speaking about Jaaved Jaaferi, she said, 'Javed Jafferi is one of the most underrated actors in the industry and here his skills are deployed to full potential.' Describing the essence of the film, she added poignantly, 'The film spreads love and if it's so easy to spread hate then why can't we do that with love?' Also Read | Express Film Club by SCREEN hosts screening of Rima Das's Village Rockstars 2; audience calls it 'life-like' and deeply relevant During his interaction with the audience, director Avinash Das shared insights into his storytelling process. He said he gravitates toward narratives he can personally connect with and strives to portray them with utmost honesty on screen. Reflecting on the film's journey, he revealed the difficulties faced during the certification process. According to Das, the censor board initially denied certification, pushing the team to appeal to the Revising Committee, which suggested twenty cuts. Eventually, the filmmakers had to approach the court, which advised them to 'drop two lines and asked them to release.' The audience responded with enthusiasm and emotion. Many viewers expressed deep appreciation for the film, calling it both entertaining and touching. One audience member went as far as to say, 'It's one of the greatest films I have seen in my life.'
The Hindu
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
CBFC and the Politics of Censorship in Modi's India
Published : Jul 08, 2025 17:15 IST - 12 MINS READ On June 30, the Kerala High Court rightly reminded the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) of a basic fact—that its job is not to moralise. Not to police film titles or creators' choice of story. Or how they portray or narrate them. And certainly not to act like it is safeguarding 'culture' from the perils of cinema. The producers of JSK: Janaki v/s State of Kerala applied for film certification on June 12, aiming for a theatrical release on June 27. Under Rule 23 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the CBFC's Regional Officer is required to constitute an Examining Committee when such an application is made. The film cleared this hurdle and as happens generally, should have been issued a certificate. However, Rule 25 empowers the Chairperson to overrule the Committee's recommendation and refer the film to a Revising Committee, which re-evaluates the film and decides by majority. Janaki found itself caught in this discretionary loop. The production house by then had already challenged the delay in certification before the Kerala High Court, stating it would lose up to Rs.80 lakh if the film is not released on time. However, the Revising Committee insisted on changes that the producers refused to make. The objection? That the protagonist's name—Janaki—was inappropriate because she is a rape survivor and Janaki is also a name for the Hindu goddess Sita. It was, by any measure, an absurd line of reasoning. A simple Google search would show that Janaki is among the 111 names by which Sita is known. Justice N. Nagaresh, who is hearing the case and decided to watch the movie himself before ruling on the case, rightly observed that the protagonist Janaki is not a rapist and is a woman fighting for justice in a court of law. 'Eighty per cent of names in this country have religious connotations, like, Ahammed, Anthony, Kesavan, Krishnan,' the single-judge bench stated. Also Read | In Mahmudabad's case, we see judicial choking of free thought The CBFC's decision, the judge implied, was not grounded in law but in arbitrary sentiment. And sentiment, unlike statute, cannot be the basis for denying certification. The fact that the film's teaser with the same name was cleared three months ago, following the very same process, did not help the CBFC's case. What makes the entire episode even more strange and ironic is that the film stars the BJP's own Union Minister, Suresh Gopi. This goes on to show that when sentiment, not statute, governs decision-making, even political proximity offers no guarantee of protection. The CBFC's absurdity is no outlier, and absurdity is the governing logic of censorship in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's India. Over the past decade, the CBFC has become less a certifying body and more an arm of state-sponsored and sentiment-driven censorship. With every decision, every inexplicable demand for cuts, and every instance of folded resistance in the face of fringe protests, the Board has revealed what it truly is: a morality police in disguise. From the politically obedient chairmanship of Pahlaj Nihalani (2015-17) to the more polished but equally servile tenure of Prasoon Joshi (2017-present), the CBFC has functioned not as a neutral certifier but as an ideological vetting committee. Sanctification of films The CBFC derives its powers from the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Under Sections 4 and 5B, it can suggest modifications or refuse certification altogether if a film violates broad content guidelines, like, if it undermines the sovereignty or integrity of India, threatens public order or decency, or offends morality. In addition to this, the law allows the government to issue a set of guidelines to guide the certification process, and these guidelines are as broad as they can get. These catch-all categories, never exhaustively defined, have served as blank cheques for cultural control. In practice, they allow the Board to dictate what language is permissible, what costumes are appropriate, and what ideologies are tolerable. This allows the CBFC to regulate not just content, but tone, style, subtext, and politics. And over time, the line between certification and censorship has blurred, and under the current political regime, it seems to have been erased. In the 2016 case of Udta Punjab, the Nihalani-led CBFC suggested a mammoth 94 cuts, including the removal of the word 'Punjab' itself and references to drug use—both of which were central to the theme of the film. Use of terms like 'MP', 'MLA', 'Parliament', slang for drugs, close-up shots of persons injecting drugs, etc., was also asked to be removed. The Board even asked the film to add a disclaimer to show 'efforts made by the government to tackle drug problem'. Later, Nihalani would admit in an interview that he was asked to delay the film's release. Who, he would not say. But Punjab, then governed by the Shiromani Akali Dal and the BJP, was going into an election the next year. The Bombay High Court was eventually called upon to intervene, clearing the film for release with just one cut and a revised disclaimer. In its judgment, the court reminded the CBFC that adult audiences cannot be treated like children. Echoing what the Kerala High Court would later orally reiterate in the Janaki case, the Bombay High Court observed that 'it is open for a creative person to choose the backdrop, setting and story line. No one can dictate how and what the content of the film should be.' Despite these remarks, the CBFC has not changed. In fact, its regression has only furthered. Many films that have been subjected to the Board's regressive censor-powers but which were eventually released thanks to the courts, received critical acclaim for their portrayal of reality and truth—truth that the CBFC and its political masters much preferred buried. Political alignment Under Nihalani, censorship became performative. He introduced a list of banned cuss words—even for films certified for adult viewing. He objected to kissing scenes in a James Bond film and demanded that all content align with 'Indian culture', a term that, like morality, remains undefined. His decisions were often very bizarre. That continued after his removal, when the poet Prasoon Joshi took over and has ever since stuck to the chair. Joshi brought polish and poetry, but not freedom. The culture of bureaucratic overreach persisted. The Board has continued to deny certification or suggest cuts based on the vague possibility that someone, somewhere, might take offense. Consider the latest case of Phule, a biopic on social reformers Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule. The Board reportedly asked for nearly a dozen cuts, including replacing the phrase '3000 years of slavery' (a reference to casteism) with 'many years', deleting words like 'Mang' and 'Mahar', and modifying scenes that depicted caste-based labour. The actor-director Anurag Kashyap, one of the fiercest, vocal critics of the BJP government, called out the CBFC for its actions as the film exposed 'the agenda of this casteist, regionalist, racist, government'. The film was finally cleared after producers agreed to the modifications, but only in a form that muted its central critique. This year too, Santosh was denied certification since the CBFC was offended by the film's realistic and morally complex portrayal of police brutality, caste discrimination, Islamophobia, and misogyny. The internationally acclaimed film was the UK's official Oscar entry in the Best International Feature Film category, a missed opportunity for India. Just as the CBFC once demanded a sycophantic disclaimer in Udta Punjab praising the State government's efforts to tackle drug abuse, another striking example came this year with Sitaare Zameen Par. Sent to a Revising Committee, the film was reportedly cleared only after the producers agreed to include a quote by Prime Minister Modi, along with other mandated cuts like removing the visual of a 'kamal' (lotus, the BJP's party symbol). Political appeasement is also a part of the certification process. To add to this quiet hell, The Hindu's Aroon Deep reported that the CBFC has quietly altered its online portal that offered near-complete access to film certification records, including detailed cut lists demanded. Now, the public can view only the cut lists of films currently in theatres—the archive is gone. Ongoing censorship and the Board's arbitrariness is rendered invisible in real time. What little transparency once existed has been sealed shut. Pre-2021, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), headed by a retired judge, sometimes came to the rescue of artistic freedom. Like when the CBFC denied certification to the 2017 film Lipstick Under My Burkha, calling the film 'lady-oriented' (only Nihalani knows what that means) and too sexual, the FCAT overturned the decision, noting that the Board had misread its brief. That tribunal no longer exists. Modi's government abolished the FCAT in 2021, in the garb of larger tribunal reform, citing 'administrative efficiency'. In reality, it eliminated the only appellate forum that could reasonably challenge CBFC decisions without going to court. Filmmakers must now litigate in the High Courts. But litigation is a privilege. Small filmmakers cannot afford it. Festival circuit films often die waiting. In the FCAT's absence, even temporary relief can take months. The High Courts are also crunched for time, paralysed by over five million pending cases and a crippling shortfall of judges which is the government's own doing. The chilling effect deepens. It is no accident that while meaningful films are blocked or butchered, propaganda routinely passes off as cinema and wins state-sponsored applause. The Kashmir Files and The Vaccine War are prime examples of films that play fast and loose with fact, yet receive open endorsement from the highest quarters, with the Prime Minister himself attending screenings. Many of these spectacles are directed by Vivek Agnihotri, a CBFC board member, who has famously declared that 'facts are not facts' and that 'emotional truth' matters more. Naturally, this logic—where sentiment trumps factual scrutiny, as also seen in other walks of life in the past decade—has seeped deeper into the CBFC's functioning. In that sense, Agnihotri's 2017 appointment to the CBFC in Modi's India is a natural destiny unfolding. Self-censorship, by design This design is not accidental. A state that wants to control cinema does not always need to impose bans, like we saw in the case of the January 2023 BBC documentary on Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. It can achieve the same result by making the process unpredictable, arbitrary, and exhausting. Filmmakers now anticipate what the CBFC will not clear and write scripts accordingly. Political critique is dulled. Which is why it came as a surprise when the 2023 film Jawan—a mass-market Shah Rukh Khan-starrer—featured a striking, over-a-minute-long monologue urging citizens to ask questions before casting their vote. The film portrayed themes of farmers' suicides and the public healthcare system, and gave Khan's character, Azad, a powerful piece-to-camera to insist on electoral accountability—a rarity in today's cinematic landscape. In a political climate where even mild dissent is stifled, let alone from a global superstar, this was an unusually direct, veiled critique of the political establishment. This was even more significant since the general election was only months away. But it will be foolish to think these are not exceptions. The CBFC today does not even need to wield its scissors—because what would have been cut is no longer written. Speak to any filmmaker worth their salt, and they will tell you about the vanishing tribe of talented screenwriters in Mumbai and elsewhere who once spent years crafting the perfect story that aspired to be masterpieces of art. Most of them have either retreated into writing for small production houses that function like a factory that churns out cringeworthy content and second-screen distractions, for meagre payments, or left the industry altogether. The arrival of OTT platforms once promised a new frontier of an independent, daring, democratic space. But with the looming spectre of OTT regulation and sustained political pressure (judicial pressure too, as soon-to-be Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, is also batting for this sort of regulation), even these platforms now self-censor. The 'Ease of Doing Business' is less about deregulation and more about deference—how smoothly you bend to keep the political masters comfortable. Many now choose to crawl for safety over story. Some OTT platforms' India heads are frequently spotted making rounds of the PMO and Ministries, like Information and Broadcasting, in Delhi. Anurag Kashyap has, on several occasions, called out platforms like Netflix India, who he described as a 'bunch of most dishonest and morally corrupt' persons and for its 'lack of empathy, courage, and vision'. Harsh as they are, Kashyap's remarks embody the collective frustration of today's artists. In that sense, truly, under Prime Minister Modi, India has become a place where mediocrity flourishes by design, while talent is exiled to the margins—unseen, unread, and increasingly unwritten. The blocking of thought-provoking narratives like Santosh highlights the Indian state's paternalistic attitude towards its citizens: either they are deemed too naive to grasp the gravity of difficult truths, or such truths are considered too dangerous to awaken them to. The dynamic is about pre-emptively suppressing the possibility of independent thought. The CBFC in Modi's India has functioned to meet that end by systematically and sustainably filtering out dissent, nuance, and depth in the name of morality or this government's go-to term— 'national interest'. Also Read | NALSA promised dignity. This case will test its truth This is not just the erosion of creative freedom. It is the systematic dulling of a population's political imagination. A society constantly numbed with safe stories and cheap spectacle loses the language to articulate injustice or even recognise it. What would an upper-middle-class young adult understand of caste dynamics and its perils faced by persons in rural Uttar Pradesh, if not by reading up on it or watching its creative portrayal? The government, through its control over cinema, ensures that citizens remain passive consumers, in their own little bubbles and silos, easier to control when divided. The result is a society where people cease to be active participants in public life and instead come to view the elected government as their mai-baap—a paternal force to be obeyed, not questioned. Add to this mix the weapons of mass distraction—sensational news cycles, empty spectacle like police encounters, and algorithm-driven social media outrage—and you have the perfect cocktail for control—a population numbed into submission and a regime free to rule unchecked. Saurav Das is an investigative journalist writing on law, judiciary, crime, and policy.
Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
High Court points to Sita Aur Geeta and Ram Lakhan, asks why CBFC objects to title of Janaki vs State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday asked what the problem was with the title of the Malayalam film, Janaki vs State of Kerala, after the Central Board of Film Certification demanded that it be changed. The producers of the film, starring actor and Union minister Suresh Gopi, approached the High Court against the delay in CBFC certification for the film that had been scheduled for release on Friday (June 27). Following opposition to the CBFC's first demand for a change in the title of the film, the matter was taken up by the Revising Committee of the board, which also called for the name change. The word the CBFC wants changed is Janaki, another name for Goddess Sita, which is also the name of the main character in the film. When the matter came up for hearing in the High Court, Justice N Nagaresh pointed out there had been several films that have names of Gods in the title, and that there had so far been no problem. 'Then, how come for Janaki there is a complaint?' the judge asked. The court observed that there had been films such Sita Aur Geeta (1972) and Ram Lakhan (1989). The CBFC informed the court that it had issued a notice to the producers, saying the film could be sanctioned for public exhibition if they carry out a change in the name of the lead character, Janaki, from the title and from dialogue. The notice also said the Revising Committee came to the conclusion. It said the film deals with mature content, which includes sexual crime against women, strong sexual language/words, references to drugs, smoking, and alcohol consumption. Considering the same, the Revising Committee unanimously recommended the grant of 'UA 16+' with the modifications. Subsequently, the court directed the CBFC to place the notice before it on the next day of hearing on June 30, even asking the film producers to either reply to the notice or appeal against it. Supreme Court advocate and Rajya Sabha member Haris Beeran, who appeared for the producer, Cosmos Entertainment, said the board has no right to issue such a notice. It is untenable under the cinematograph certification rules. 'We are going to challenge the notice as filing a reply will only further delay the release of the film,' he said.
India Today
27-06-2025
- Entertainment
- India Today
Ram Lakhan okay, but not Janaki? Kerala High Court raps censor board over film row
The Kerala High Court on Friday questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over its objection to the use of the name 'Janaki' in the Malayalam film 'JSK – Janaki vs State of Kerala', starring Union Minister and BJP leader Suresh Gopi and actor Anupama a petition filed by the film's production house, Cosmos Entertainment, over the delay in certification, Justice N Nagaresh pointed out that Indian cinema has a history of using mythological names without have a film named Seeta Aur Geeta. Janaki is Seeta. Nothing happened. No problem. Nobody has any complaint. We have a film named Ram Lakhan. Nobody has any complaint. Then how come for Janaki there is a complaint?' the judge asked the Deputy Solicitor General (DSGI) representing the CBFC. The court's remarks came after the CBFC issued a show cause notice to the filmmakers, directing them to drop the name 'Janaki' from the film's title and CBFC argued that the use of the name 'Janaki', a name associated with Goddess Sita, in a film with such content could violate guideline 2 (xi) under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which prohibits 'visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups.'The film, dealing with mature content including sexual violence, was scheduled for release on June 27 but was held up due to the certification court, however, questioned the rationale behind this objection and noted that the CBFC's Screening Committee had already cleared the film, but the Chairman referred it to the Revising Committee, which then raised the name-related production's counsel argued that as per the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, the Revising Committee cannot issue a show cause notice. Its role is limited to suggesting cuts and granting that the show cause notice be placed before the court on June 30, the judge told the filmmakers they are free to either respond to the notice or file an production house said it submitted the film for certification on June 12 and completed screening on June 18. They claim that the delay, coupled with the sudden objection over the name, is causing financial losses and violates their constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession).- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Kerala
