Explained | Why CBFC's New Set Of Rules Has Ruffled Feathers, Invited Objection From Kerala Film Body

The Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) latest decree, taking away the autonomy from filmmakers in finalizing titles or release dates prior to certification, has triggered pushback from several filmmakers and film bodies.

Latest among these are the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce and the Film Producers Association. Alongside acclaimed writer S. Hareesh, severe questioning have landed on the move, slamming it as an unjustified power grab that encroaches on artistic freedom. These pertain to the directive released by the CBFC on October 26, a five-point advisory that has sparked alarm. While the certification board seems permanently mired in trouble with controversies and clashes sprouting every other day, what do the new instructions mean for filmmakers?

In a November 7 letter to CBFC CEO Rajendra Singh, the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce expressly warned that the board's October 26 directive, retaining the right to alter pre-approved film titles, threatens the Malayalam industry with financial chaos and production delays. While accepting four of the advisory's five rules, the Chamber firmly called for a rollback on title oversight. It categorically stressed that film titles are locked early for multi-crore investments, distributor deals, and extensive promotional campaigns. Under the CBFC's new directive, last-minute censor-mandated changes could come as a costly, disruptive blow to producers.

Speaking to OnManorama, critics of the new advisory underline that film titles require extensive creative deliberation and already undergo strict trade-body checks for duplication or obscenity; handing ultimate veto power over titles to an already overreaching censor board thrusts an intolerable extra layer of bureaucratic control on storytelling and film promotion.

Director Praveen Narayanan had to weather the blow of censorship over Janaki Vs State of Kerala, a title designed specifically to capture his protagonist's central conflict. Wary of artistic suppression, he warned, “Janaki is the titular character, and we wanted to raise an important question through the film. The title reflected that very idea. If the Censor Board decides to take control of such creative spaces, it is extremely unfortunate.”

Despite defending the title's narrative significance, pushback over the character's name sharing a link with Goddess Sita ultimately forced a compromise to Janaki V, leading the filmmaker to conclude to OnManorama, “The Censor Board's attempt to interfere with a film's title was evident even then.”

B Ragesh, president of the Film Producers Association, lashed out. “Why do we give films titles in the first place? It is because we want them to have an identity. Everything associated with a film is marketed under that name. I am currently making a film titled Mattanchery Mafia. Imagine doing all the promotions and publicity under that name, only to be told two days before its release that I have to change the title. In Kerala, at least 200 films are released every year. Imagine the situation if all of them have to be promoted without a confirmed title until shortly before release. Just like a script, a film's title is also an artistic expression. It is not right to exercise control over it."

Honey Trehan Slams The CBFC Directives

The advisory arrives in the wake of several high-profile certification controversies. Vijay's Jana Nayagan met a long delay that led its makers to approach the court, while Diljit Dosanjh's Satluj, earlier titled Punjab '95, was not cleared for release and was briefly made available on Zee5 before being taken down.

Trehan denounced the CBFC's latest five-point advisory as a blatant overreach. Hitting out at the board's rigid directives on social media, Trehan posted on his Instagram Stories: "New guidelines show and underline the cowardice and the dictatorship in the country, not the democratic approach towards the freedom of speech."

Trehan had alleged that the CBFC initially suggested 21 cuts, which the makers contested. Following their legal battle, he insisted that the number of suggested cuts increased to 127 during subsequent negotiations.

What Does The CBFC Advisory Demand?

A October 26 advisory issued by CBFC CEO Rajendra Singh under the Cinematograph Act (1952) and Certification Rules (2024) mandates that filmmakers submit strictly complete, final cuts for censorship.

Under these regulations, submitted films must feature all finalized visual and audio elements, including titles, credits, disclaimers, music, background score, censor slates, and sound mix—alongside required accessibility features like closed captions and audio descriptions. The board warned that screening incomplete prints, placeholder graphics, or temporary scores will render applications non-compliant, triggering delays, returns, or outright rejections. Only CBFC-certified versions can be exhibited in theatres, and an application's official receipt date will only be logged once every document and formality is satisfied.

Crucially, the board asserted that film titles used in promotional campaigns or applications will not be regard as final and binding. Furthermore, announced release dates, trailer drops, and promotional timelines will have no influence the examination schedule, which will only follow standard procedures.

Reconstituted CBFC Board Details

This administrative crackdown follows the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s September 16 reconstitution of the 18-member CBFC board for a three-year term. The refreshed panel features high-profile industry figures, including actors Preity Zinta, Pankaj Tripathi, Suniel Shetty, Manoj Joshi, Roopali Ganguly, Prosenjit Chatterjee, and Pallavi Joshi, alongside composer Ricky Kej, producer Supriya Yarlagadda, and directors Priyadarshan and Neela Madhab Panda, with singer Hansraj Hans also among its members.