The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is the main gatekeeper for movies in India. For filmmakers, getting their work approved without major changes is a constant struggle. When the board demands heavy edits, it often sparks a major debate about creative freedom, leaving directors feeling that their original stories have been damaged by an outdated system.
A clear example of this tension happened with the recent Hollywood movie Obsession. Even though the film was given an ‘A’ (Adults Only) rating, the board still cut a crucial 30-second scene. This decision faced heavy criticism from filmgoers, who pointed out an obvious contradiction: if a movie is already restricted to adults over 18, cutting content seems to defeat the whole purpose of an adult rating.
ALSO READ: ‘Never Our Intention To Objectify’: Peddi Director Apologises Amid Janhvi Kapoor Role Debate
Similar issues came to light during the certification of the sequel to the hit movie Dhurandhar. The CBFC ordered 21 cuts and told the filmmakers to “half-mute” certain swear words. Reacting to this, artist Deepak Tijori questioned the logic of the rule, noting that muting only the one part of a word does nothing to hide its meaning from the audience.
Furthermore, these strict rules for movie theaters create a double standard when compared to television and internet streaming. For instance, when the first Dhurandhar movie premiered on TV channels like Star Gold, content that was originally meant only for adults was broadcast directly into living rooms, making it easily accessible to children.
The logic behind these guidelines can also seem contradictory. While CBFC rules state that movies should not promote violence, massive action franchises like Dhurandhar rely entirely on intense action and violence to tell their stories.
This regulatory gap is even wider now with the rise of OTT streaming platforms. Filmmakers frequently bypass theater restrictions by releasing the unedited, “Undekha” versions of their work online, where the CBFC has no authority. Because streaming apps lack foolproof age-checking systems, these uncut versions can easily be watched by minors. In fact, streaming platforms now use the promise of an “uncensored cut” as a powerful marketing tool to attract viewers.
In contrast, global standards like the Motion Picture Association (MPA) in Hollywood, use clear age ratings and warnings instead of cutting out scenes. This approach protects artistic freedom by giving audiences the information they need to make their own choices, placing the responsibility on parents rather than forcing filmmakers to change their work.
Ultimately, these contradictions raise important questions about the role of film regulation today:
Has theater censorship become a mere formality rather than an effective system?
If movie theaters are policed so strictly, why do streaming platforms get a free pass when they have a much bigger reach into people’s homes?
If the uncut version of a movie eventually reaches the public online anyway, does the theater-cutting process lose its actual value?