The 2026 judgment of the Madras High Court has set the ball rolling for discussions surrounding censorship. Article 19 1(a) of the Constitution guarantees one the right to free speech and expression. Indeed, this is subject to reasonable restrictions elaborated upon in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. But it does not warrant censorship based on mere apprehensions of public disorder.
Facts in brief
The case herein is related to the Tamil film Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. The movie was claimed to be the actor’s last movie before he entered the arena of politics. Its release, however, was delayed. The onus of this was laid on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Its regional office stated that the film’s contents hurt religious sentiments and portray the armed forces inappropriately. But the film’s producers claimed that they were informed that the film was recommended for a U/A certificate.
The litigating tale
The CBFC said its revising committee was critical of the film’s portrayal of sensitive issues. It also said that the film would be granted its U/A certificate only if it complies with the modifications suggested by them. It must be noted that the decisions allegedly stemmed from an opinion of one member of the CBFC’s examining committee. On January 9, 2025, the High Court of Madras ruled in favour of the film’s release after much contemplation.
But this order was stayed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras. The film’s producers sought to file a suit on these lines before the Supreme Court. However, the Apex Court directed the matter would be adjudicated by the High Court of Madras. On January 20, 2026, the Division Bench of the High Court listened to the issues. These orders were scheduled to be passed on January 27, 2025. However, this was further prolonged upon granting the CBFC time to respond to producers’ claims.
India’s tryst with censorship dates back to the British reign. The most significant case on these lines is K.A. Abbas v Union of India and Another. The Apex Court herein elaborates upon the appointment of the Khosla Committee to lay guidelines to assess a film’s suitability. It also explains that two categories of classification, namely ‘A’ and ‘U’, are reasonable given the nature of such content. Then again, in Nipun Malhotra v Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court of India emphasised that the Censor Board must view the film from the lens of an ordinary person and not a hypersensitive individual.
Over the years, censorship of films in India has witnessed mixed responses. The case of
The primary reason could be the ambiguous constitution of the CBFC. Firstly, the CBFC does not possess judicial powers. The Courts have also elaborated on this facet. This organisation, as per the Cinematograph Act of 1952, consists of a Chairman and about 12 or 13 other members. These individuals are appointed by the Central Government and act at its pleasure. Regional offices of the CBFC are also established across various regions of India. These institutions can appoint an Examining committee which consists of an Advisory Panel and one Examining Officer. It must be noted that the members of the panel herein are said to be ‘persons qualified in the opinion of the Central Government’.
Many movies have been subject to such concerns. Vishwaroopam, starring Kamal Hassan, saw a similar turn of events. In the other states, Hindi films such as Padmavat, Pathan, and many more were also subject to the censor boards firm decisions. This begs the question of the reasons or grounds for censorship.
Criteria for censorship
Indian cinema has adapted newer strategies to enhance the movie-viewing experience. This includes presentations related to themes which were previously perceived as taboo (eg: sex, religion, caste, etc). Films in India have been recognised globally too. Technological developments and access to the over-the-top (OTT) platforms have played a pivotal role. Then again, societal changes have fuelled newer challenges in three distinct dimensions in this arena.
A. Apprehensions of public disorder
Fears of harsh responses towards content are not unknown to the Indian media space. The Supreme Court, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, explains that Article 19(1)(a) strikes a balance between individual fundamental rights and public order. Additionally, it held that all criticism related to a public measure or the Government’s functions failure are protected under this provision. It must also be noted that even courts must welcome constructive criticism and debates.
In Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd & Ors v Government of West Bengal & Ors, the Apex Court explained that the CBFC is a statutory body. It is an expert body which determines the suitability of a film for public viewing. This does not empower them to ban the release of a film by merely presuming certain fears.
In fact, the Courts have also emphasised that such presumptions cannot be suitable grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression. More importantly, in Nipun Malhotra v Sony Pictures Films Pvt Ltd & Ors, it was held that the effect of a film must be determined from the vantage point of an ordinary person with common sense rather than a hypersensitive person. Further, the Censor Board must adapt to the dynamic society and restrictions in this regard should be imposed only if necessary.
B. Evolving audiences and tastes in cinema
The Censor Board has been subject to much scrutiny owing to its opaque assessment systems. The procedures adopted by them are seldom known to the public. It must be noted that India’s cinema viewing audiences are demographically diverse. Not only do they hail from various cultural backgrounds, but they are often multilingual. Migration has also contributed significantly to these trends. Such factors have not been accounted for by members of the CBFC whilst assessing the suitability of a film.
The dawn of OTT Platforms has certainly altered tastes in the world of cinema. Not only are today’s audiences aware of various types of films, but they are also inclined to appreciate those from across the country’s borders. Our laws propagate a holistic view of creative works. It also provides a wide scope for their interpretation and recognises the need to blend in with the changes around us. Therefore, censorship must be tread wisely to promote creativity, innovation, and meaningful progress.
C. Identifying the reasonable man
In most circumstances, courts determine the contours of reasonability. This is because, as explained in Collector v P. Mangamma, reasons vary based on the individual’s personality traits, the times, as well as the circumstances. It is only in the context of negligence that one can identify a reasonable person. This further confirms the subjectivity associated with such an exercise. The case of Nipun Malhotra v Sony Pictures Films India Pvt Ltd & Ors also elaborates on how the Censor Board must view films from the vantage point of an ordinary person and not that of a hypersensitive individual.
Conclusion
Cinema can change societies. Then again, it is seldom an absolute depiction of reality. Filmmakers exploit their creative licenses to either entertain or educate their viewers. The judgment pronounced by Justice P.T. Asha was fair. It demonstrated the broad-mindedness of today’s citizens towards films at large. Then again, the unforeseen delay does trigger questions of fair play. Mere anticipation cannot amount to a reasonable cause for such scenarios. India’s movie-loving audience has evolved and is more aware of different genres today than in the pre-OTT era. Censorship laws, therefore, must cater to these facets.