Subject: Certification/Promotional Bodies

Why in the News

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), also known as the Censor Board, has held its 149th meeting, its first in six years and the first under its new chairperson. Members used it to ask for a list of the people who have consistently headed Revising Committees in recent years, the panels that re-examine a film when a certification decision is disputed. The request follows an investigation published in September 2025, which found that three board members had been heading most Revising Committees. The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 require the board to meet once every quarter, and the 12-member board had last met on 31 August 2019. No member has been officially reappointed since the board was reconstituted in 2017, though the tenure is three years. A body whose membership has not been renewed and which does not meet is the body from which every panel deciding a contested certification is drawn.

What is a Revising Committee?

1. When it is constituted: A Revising Committee re-examines a film where either the producers or the board are dissatisfied with the Examining Committee’s decision.
2. What it sits above: The Examining Committee is the first panel to view a film and recommend its certificate.
3. Who staffs it: It is headed by a member of the board, which is why the identity of the recurring heads decides the outcome of contested certifications.

What did members ask for at the 149th meeting?

1. The list of recurring panel heads: Members requested a list of those who consistently headed Revising Committees in recent years to review films.
2. The finding behind the request: An investigation published in September 2025 found that three board members had been heading most Revising Committees.
3. What else was on the agenda: Recent films that had generated controversy, strategies for moving forward, and industry outreach programmes were discussed at the virtual meeting.

What do the rules require, and what happened instead?

1. The meeting requirement: Under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the CBFC board must meet once every quarter.
2. The record against it: The 149th meeting took place on 29 August, and the board had last met on 31 August 2019.
3. The board resolved to do what the rules already say: It was discussed that the board should meet at least once quarterly, in accordance with the rules.

Why is the board’s own composition in question?

1. No reappointment since 2017: None of the members of the 12-member board has been officially reappointed since that year.
2. The tenure has long since run out: The stated tenure of a member is three years, and the board was last reconstituted on 1 August 2017.
3. The consequence for the panels: Revising Committees are headed by board members, so an unrenewed board narrows the pool from which every contested review is drawn.

What did the 2024 Rules change?

1. They replaced the earlier framework: The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 were notified in supersession of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and that change itself came up for discussion at the meeting.
2. Age-based categories replaced a single UA mark: The 2024 Rules subdivided the existing UA category into three age-based categories, UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+, in place of the earlier twelve year mark.
3. The new categories need interpretation: A request for clarification on the difference between the 16 year and the 18 year certification was made at the meeting.

Challenges to the CBFC’s certification framework

1. Delay operates as a decision: A certificate is the precondition for theatrical release, so time taken over a review has the same commercial effect as a refusal. Eg. A film awaiting a revision date loses the release window around which its distribution and publicity were booked.
   The Fix: Fix an outer time limit for a Revising Committee to report, with automatic escalation to the board once that limit lapses.
2. The reviewer and the appellate reviewer come from one pool: Advisory panel members sit on Examining Committees and board members chair the panels that review them, so the second look is not independent of the first. Eg. Both tiers are constituted by the same appointing authority from the same panel lists.
   The Fix: Draw the revision tier from a separate roster with fixed terms, published in advance of any specific film.
3. The specialist appellate tier no longer exists: The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal was abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so a producer’s remedy against a certification decision now lies in a High Court. Eg. Certification disputes that the tribunal would once have heard are now filed as writ petitions.
   The Fix: Restore a specialist appellate forum, or fix a statutory hearing timeline for certification writs so the remedy matches the release cycle.
4. Modifications are negotiated rather than adjudicated: A producer facing a restrictive category has an incentive to accept voluntary cuts instead of contesting them. Eg. Voluntary modifications are routinely offered to secure a less restrictive certificate.
   The Fix: Require every accepted modification and its stated ground to be recorded in a published certification order.
5. The framework does not cover the largest release channel: The Cinematograph Act, 1952 governs films for public exhibition, and content released on a streaming service falls instead under the self-regulation regime of the Information Technology Rules, 2021. Eg. The same title can carry a CBFC certificate in theatres and a self-assigned rating on a streaming platform.
   The Fix: State in law which regime a release falls under by medium, and align the age categories across the two so a rating means the same thing in both.

Conclusion

The board has resumed meeting and has put its own functioning on the record as the first item of business. Two decisions now sit with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rather than with the board: reconstitution of a membership whose term expired years ago, and whether the list of recurring Revising Committee heads is supplied. What to watch is whether the next quarterly meeting is held on schedule, which is the first test of whether the six year gap was an aberration or the operating norm.

Back2Basics: Central Board of Film Certification

1. What it is: A statutory body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, functioning under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
2. What it does: It certifies films for public exhibition in India, and a film cannot be publicly exhibited without its certificate.
3. The certificate categories: U for unrestricted public exhibition, UA with its age-based subdivisions, A restricted to adults, and S restricted to a specialised audience.
4. How it is staffed: It has a chairperson and non-official members appointed by the Centre, with regional offices that constitute the Examining Committees.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2022] With reference to the “Tea Board” in India, consider the following statements : 1. The Tea Board is a statutory body. 2. It is a regulatory body attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. 3. The Tea Board’s Head Office is situated in Bengaluru. 4. The Board has overseas offices at Dubai and Moscow. Which of the statements given above are correct ? (a) 1 and 3 (b) 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 (d) 1 and 4 ANSWER: (d)”