In recent times, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has frequently found itself under scrutiny for stymying the release of numerous films. As the sole entity mandated to review films and grant appropriate censor certificates in India, the CBFC’s recent actions have raised significant concerns. Filmmakers are grappling with prolonged, unexplained delays that jeopardize their projects. These issues remain largely unaddressed, leaving many to question the board’s motivations.
Just weeks ago, director Nikkhil Advani publicly expressed his frustration over his film ‘Vedaa,’ featuring John Abraham and Sharvari, which faced an “unusual delay” attributed to the CBFC. Speaking to Mid-day, Advani disclosed that after submitting the film well ahead of its release, he was left in the dark with no communication from the board. Although ‘Vedaa’ eventually received a U/A certificate, the delay substantially shortened the film’s promotional window, potentially impacting its release during the crowded Independence Day weekend, a time slot with multiple films scheduled for launch across India.
However, ‘Vedaa’ is not an isolated incident. Several other films have encountered similar unexplained roadblocks at the hands of the CBFC.
**Punjab ’95: A Saga of Delays**
One notable case is ‘Punjab ’95,’ directed by Honey Trehan and starring Diljit Dosanjh. This film, based on the life of Punjab activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, was submitted to the CBFC in December 2022. Despite the passage of several months, the film remains uncertified. Initially, the board requested 21 cuts, which the filmmakers contested, leading to further delays. This delay resulted in the film being pulled from prestigious film festivals such as the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), the London Film Festival, and MAMI.
In an interview with Mid-day, a source close to the film revealed that the number of demanded cuts steadily increased from 21 to 35, then 42, and eventually to 65. The film’s producers complied with all the requests and resubmitted the film. Around this time, the country was gearing up for Lok Sabha elections, prompting the board to advise the filmmakers to withhold the release until the elections concluded, citing the sensitive nature of the story.
After the elections, silence ensued. A newly convened revising committee reviewed the revised film with 65 cuts. The board assured the filmmakers that once CBFC Chief Prasoon Joshi reviewed the film, a certificate would be issued. Despite assurances and an additional 15-day waiting period, no further updates were provided. The board’s radio silence continues to perplex and frustrate the filmmakers.
The CBFC’s reluctance to clear ‘Punjab ’95,’ a film grounded in real-life events, begs the question—what elements of the story are deemed too controversial for the public? The source divulged that the board not only demanded numerous cuts but also insisted on changing the protagonist’s name and the film’s title. Additionally, references to 1984 and Indira Gandhi were required to be omitted.
. The rationale for these decisions remains unclear, especially given that another film, ‘Emergency,’ also based on Indira Gandhi’s era, hasn’t faced such stringent demands.
Interestingly, some CBFC members reportedly appreciated the film and requested copies of the original to show their children. Despite internal sympathies, the board members admitted their “hands are tied,” indicating that higher powers may be influencing these decisions. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry’s involvement is also intriguing, as it is typically uncommon for the ministry to review films.
Reflecting on a similar ordeal faced during the production of ‘Udta Punjab’ in 2014, the source pointed to a transformative change in the political climate. Previously, filmmakers had the option to contest CBFC’s decisions in court, which appears less viable today. Despite cooperative compliance from the filmmakers, the film remains in limbo with no clear end to the bureaucratic bottleneck.
**Monkey Man: The Missing Superhero**
Dev Patel’s directorial debut ‘Monkey Man’ faced a similar fate. Despite receiving positive reviews globally, the film has not been cleared for release in India. Originally slated for an April 19 release, the film’s screening was avoided by the CBFC’s Examining Committee. The Hindu reported that Universal Studios made several changes to the film, including altering scenes to diminish potential political-religious controversies and changing the color of political banners from saffron to red.
‘Monkey Man’ tells the story of an underdog street fighter who evolves into a vigilante superhero. The protagonist seeks to avenge his mother’s death by fighting socio-political injustices but ultimately becomes a hero for the oppressed. The CBFC’s reluctance to clear the film perplexes many, given its universal acclaim and significant changes made to accommodate potential sensitivities.
**Rang De Basanti (Bhojpuri): A Title Tussle**
Lastly, the Bhojpuri film ‘Rang De Basanti’ faced delays allegedly due to its title’s similarity to the iconic Aamir Khan film from 2006, for which CBFC Chief Prasoon Joshi was the lyricist. The filmmakers submitted the film on February 21 but received no communication until early March. A call requesting a change in the film’s title was met with resistance from the producers due to pre-established marketing materials.
Producer Roshan Singh accused Joshi of targeted obstruction, citing a precedent Bhojpuri film titled ‘Rang De Basanti Chola’ that faced no such hurdles. Another Bhojpuri film, ‘Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam,’ was passed swiftly, highlighting potential biases in the board’s functioning. Ex-CBFC chairman Pahlaj Nihalani expressed similar allegations, accusing the board of favoring corporate-backed films over smaller, regional projects.
The film, starring Khesari Lal Yadav, eventually received clearance and was released on June 7, but not without significant disruptions.
Repeated attempts to reach the CBFC for comments have been met with silence. This ongoing issue of unexplained delays by the CBFC continues to hinder filmmakers and raises pressing questions about the transparency and impartiality of India’s central film regulatory body.
