Cuts and ratings: On the CBFC, Parasakthi and Jana Nayagan

Popular films that raise uncomfortable political questions or involve actors with stakes in active politics seem to invariably get caught up in issues related to certification and release. The controversies surrounding the release of two Tamil films, Parasakthi (a historical-fictional retelling of events coinciding with the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s) and Jana Nayagan (featuring actor-politician Vijay), are cases in point. Their releases have again highlighted the need for procedural reforms in India’s certification process to allow creative expression to flourish within constitutional limits rather than being subject to ad hoc restrictions. The case of Parasakthi, with its numerous cuts suggested by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in a rushed manner to meet its release date, raises concerns about the possible suppression of historical narratives. The CBFC is mandated to check content against issues such as integrity of the state and public order according to the Cinematograph Act. But changes to and removal of dialogues and scenes that pertain to a pivotal chapter in Tamil Nadu’s political and India’s history of federalism, suggest possible over-censorship. Freedom of expression makes it imperative that such cuts must be reasoned and done in a manner that ensures that film-makers have adequate time to negotiate them than under duress. After all, the certification framework is designed to safeguard, and not stifle, creativity.

The travails of the producers of Jana Nayagan, a high-budget film also timed for release during the Pongal festival, highlight the other peril of an ad hoc approach in the certification process. Despite the CBFC’s Examining Committee’s initial recommendation of a “UA 16+” certificate, the Chairman’s decision to refer the film to a Revising Committee just days before its scheduled release, ostensibly due to fresh objections by an Examining Committee member, showed a disregard for the economic realities of film-making. While the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, technically empower the Chairman to intervene, exercising such powers at the last minute appears arbitrary, as this affects producers and distributors who bank on the Pongal period to maximise returns. The release has been delayed after a Madras High Court Division Bench stayed a Single Judge’s order to issue the certificate, holding that the urgency of a release date cannot act as pressure to deny the Board an opportunity to file its counter-affidavit. While this accords with legal procedure, it has also prevented timely legal recourse for the producers. As actor-politician Kamal Haasan has argued, clarity on regulation and certification is a must for unconstrained creativity and related economic activity. The CBFC must institute greater transparency and establish clearer timelines in its certification processes.

Overall Analysis

The editorial critically examines the functioning of India’s film certification process through the controversies surrounding Parasakthi and Jana Nayagan. It situates these cases within a familiar pattern: films that engage with sensitive political themes or involve actors active in politics often face heightened scrutiny and regulatory hurdles. The author’s central argument is that such scrutiny frequently slips into arbitrariness, undermining creative freedom and economic viability.

The language is measured but firm, using the cases to highlight structural flaws rather than individual culpability. In discussing Parasakthi, the editorial raises concern over the CBFC’s hurried and extensive cuts, suggesting that they risk suppressing historical narratives. By invoking the Cinematograph Act’s mandate — protecting public order and the integrity of the state — the author contrasts legal intent with practice, implying that the Board may be overstepping its role. Phrases such as “over-censorship” and “under duress” underscore the imbalance of power between regulators and filmmakers, reinforcing the argument that freedom of expression requires reasoned, timely decision-making.

The second part shifts focus to Jana Nayagan, illustrating a different but related problem: procedural unpredictability. The last-minute referral of the film to a Revising Committee is framed as insensitive to the commercial realities of the film industry. The editorial carefully acknowledges the legal authority of the CBFC Chairman while questioning the manner and timing of its exercise, thereby maintaining analytical fairness. References to court proceedings add legal credibility, while the mention of festival releases like Pongal highlights the economic stakes involved.

The concluding argument broadens the issue from two films to the larger ecosystem of creative expression and economic activity. By quoting Kamal Haasan and calling for transparency and clear timelines, the editorial advocates procedural reform rather than deregulation. Overall, the piece uses calm, constitutional language to argue that certification should enable creativity within limits, not become a tool of uncertainty or suppression.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Ad hoc – done in an improvised or unplanned manner.
2. Over-censorship – excessive or unnecessary restriction of content.
3. Duress – pressure or coercion applied to force a decision.
4. Arbitrary – based on random choice rather than reason or principle.
5. Travails – difficult or painful experiences.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial calls for urgent procedural reform in the CBFC’s certification process, stressing transparency, consistency, and respect for creative and economic realities. It argues that regulation must protect public interest without stifling expression or creating uncertainty.

Tone: Critical, reasoned, and reform-oriented, with a strong emphasis on constitutional values and fairness.