The controversy surrounding ‘L2: Empuraan’ is a reminder that the CBFC must return to its original mandate—certifying, not censoring, films. If India is to truly uphold its democratic ethos, it must allow its artists the freedom to tell their stories, unshackled by the ever-present fear of political and executive intervention.
The recent controversy surrounding the malayalam movie L2: Empuraan, the sequel to Lucifer, has once again brought into focus the fraught relationship between Indian cinema and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The film, despite obtaining certification, was subjected to multiple cuts following objections raised by various right-wing political and social groups. Such instances are emblematic of a larger issue: the gradual shift of the CBFC from a certifying body to a de facto censoring authority. The debate, however, is not just about one film—it is about the fundamental distinction between censorship and certification, and the broader implications of excessive state intervention in artistic expression.
The role of the CBFC
The CBFC, established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, was envisioned as an entity responsible for classifying films into categories based on their suitability for different audiences. However, over the years, its function has extended beyond mere classification. Instead of empowering audiences to make informed choices, it often assumes the role of a gatekeeper, determining what content is fit for public consumption. The demand for cuts, the outright denial of certification for certain films and the political considerations influencing its decisions have reduced the space for dissent and challenging narratives in Indian cinema.
The case of L2: Empuraan is instructive. The film underwent eight significant cuts, including alterations to scenes deemed sensitive and the muting of certain dialogues. Political actors, notably the Kerala BJP leadership, objected to perceived references in the film’s portrayal of historical events. In response, the filmmakers preemptively altered sequences to avoid potential backlash. This raises an important question: should artistic expression be beholden to political sensitivities or should it be allowed to function independently within the framework of the law?
The constitutional protection of artistic expression
The right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, forms the bedrock of democratic discourse. While Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency and morality, the interpretation of these exceptions has often been broad and inconsistent. The CBFC’s actions frequently extend beyond these reasonable restrictions, effectively curbing narratives that challenge the political views of the ruling dispensation.
Filmmakers across India have repeatedly found themselves at odds with the board. The case of S Durga (2017), which faced an arbitrary ban due to its title and thematic concerns, or Udta Punjab (2016), which was initially asked to remove 89 scenes for its depiction of drug abuse, demonstrates the extent to which subjective interpretations of morality and decency can stifle storytelling. The more recent blocking of Santosh, a film that critiques police brutality, further magnifies the growing intolerance towards dissent in artistic works.
The global perspective
Globally, film regulation follows a classification-based approach rather than outright censorship. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have rating systems that inform audiences about a film’s content without interfering with the filmmaker’s vision. India, on the other hand, continues to operate in a manner reminiscent of pre-liberalisation state control over media. The question, then, is why India persists with this model when democratic societies worldwide have moved towards greater artistic autonomy.
The abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 further restricted avenues for filmmakers to contest arbitrary decisions made by the CBFC. Earlier, the FCAT provided a recourse for artists and producers to challenge unfair certifications or cuts. Its removal has now consolidated decision-making power within the CBFC, leaving filmmakers with only the high courts as an avenue for appeal—a recourse that is both financially and logistically burdensome.
Political influence and the chilling effect on cinema
A worrying aspect of film censorship in India is the increasing influence of political entities in deciding what can and cannot be shown on screen. The 91% of artistic violations in India recorded in a 2017 Freemuse study were linked to government authorities or non-state actors enforcing ideological viewpoints. Filmmakers today face significant risks when dealing with subjects that could be construed as politically inconvenient.
This has led to a chilling effect, where filmmakers preemptively self-censor their content to avoid controversy. The controversy surrounding L2: Empuraan—where voluntary changes were made to avoid backlash—demonstrates how the mere possibility of censorship influences storytelling choices. Such an environment stifles critical narratives and reduces the depth of discourse in Indian cinema.
From censorship to certification
The transition from censorship to certification is not merely an industry demand but a democratic necessity. A reformed film certification system must uphold a rating-based classification system similar to international models, allowing audiences to make informed choices rather than enforcing cuts or bans. This approach would enable filmmakers to exercise their creative freedom while providing viewers with adequate guidance on content suitability.
Additionally, re-establishing an independent appellate body to oversee disputes between filmmakers and the CBFC is crucial. The absence of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) has left filmmakers with limited recourse to challenge arbitrary decisions. A fair and transparent appellate mechanism would prevent unnecessary restrictions on artistic works while ensuring that genuine concerns about public order and morality are addressed.
Transparency and accountability in CBFC decision-making must also be prioritised. Currently, the lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes objectionable content has led to inconsistent and often politically motivated interventions. Establishing well-defined parameters for certification, along with publicly accessible records of CBFC decisions, would mitigate the risk of arbitrary censorship. The CBFC must act as a facilitator of creative expression rather than an enforcer of political or ideological conformity.
To sum it up
The tension between artistic freedom and regulatory oversight is not new, but the increasing encroachment of censorship in the guise of certification threatens to stifle the creative landscape of Indian cinema. While governments and institutions have the responsibility to ensure that films do not incite hatred or violence, this role should not extend to the suppression of artistic expression based on ideological preferences.
The right to free speech cannot be a privilege granted at the state’s discretion; it is the foundation upon which a free society stands. Indian cinema must not be held hostage to political expediency; rather, it must remain a fearless, independent medium that reflects the plurality and dynamism of the nation itself.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
