Jana Nayagan controversy shows — film certification process is punishment

A film was made and duly sent to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which asked the makers to implement some cuts before it could be certified for release. It should have been a straightforward process, from conception to release, pausing only at the mandated stop at the CBFC. However, in the case of Jana Nayagan, like so many other films before it, the path to the big screen has become tortuous, winding through courtrooms as the makers struggle to get the film out. The repeated postponement of its release, because the CBFC has withheld the certificate despite its examining committee recommending it in December, has once again trained the spotlight on the needless twists and turns of the certification process.

The problem begins with the Cinematograph Act of 1952, which empowers the CBFC to classify content for viewer suitability. The ambiguity around words like “public order”, “decency” and “morality” has repeatedly been used to turn the certification process into a censorship regime. Demands for arbitrary cuts are routine and, as reported by this newspaper in September, have intensified under what has been described as a “one-man show”. The limited scope for redressal worsens the situation. The summary abolition of the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 has left filmmakers with little choice but to appeal to the high courts if they disagree with a certificate or if one is denied altogether. The Jana Nayagan saga illustrates how punishing this process can be. The makers were forced to approach the Madras High Court when the certificate was withheld following a complaint from a member of the examining committee that their concerns had not been addressed. The initial order by the HC, directing the CBFC to issue the certificate, was reversed by another bench, after which the Jana Nayagan team approached the Supreme Court. The SC has, in turn, refused to intervene and asked the makers to wait for the next Madras HC hearing, scheduled for January 20.

Over the years, attempts have been made to reform the certification process, with committees headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal and filmmaker Shyam Benegal suggesting much-needed changes. As their recommendations gather dust, the space for artistic expression continues to shrink. Livelihoods hang in balance as the financial burden of long-delayed or unreleased films grows heavier.

Overall Analysis

This editorial critically examines how India’s film certification process has increasingly become a tool of punishment rather than facilitation. Using the case of Jana Nayagan, the author shows how what should be a routine administrative step — certification by the CBFC — turns into a prolonged ordeal involving delays, arbitrary decisions, and court battles.

The language begins with irony: the phrase “should have been a straightforward process” contrasts sharply with the “tortuous” reality filmmakers face. This immediately signals the author’s disapproval. The editorial argues that although the CBFC is legally meant to classify films, vague terms in the Cinematograph Act such as “public order”, “decency”, and “morality” allow authorities to exercise excessive discretion. The writer suggests that this ambiguity enables censorship under the guise of certification.

The analysis deepens by highlighting institutional failures — particularly the abolition of the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The author’s language underscores helplessness, noting how filmmakers are left with “little choice” but to approach courts, turning artistic expression into a legal struggle. The detailed recounting of the film’s journey through the High Court and Supreme Court reinforces the argument that the process itself becomes punitive.

In the final paragraph, the editorial widens its lens beyond a single film. It laments how repeated delays harm livelihoods and shrink creative freedom. The phrase “recommendations gather dust” is a powerful metaphor suggesting governmental apathy toward reform. Overall, the language blends factual narration with restrained criticism, portraying censorship not as an exception but as a systemic problem.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Tortuous – excessively long, complicated, and difficult.
2. Ambiguity – lack of clarity or multiple possible meanings.
3. Arbitrary – based on personal discretion rather than clear rules.
4. Redressal – the act of correcting or addressing a grievance.
5. Abolition – the formal ending or removal of a system or institution.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that India’s film certification mechanism, instead of enabling free expression, has evolved into a deterrent through delay and legal harassment. It urges systemic reform to restore balance between regulation and artistic freedom.

Tone: Critical, analytical, and cautionary — firmly disapproving of institutional overreach while remaining reasoned and evidence-based.