Kochi (Kerala): In a move that highlights growing concerns over arbitrary censorship in Indian cinema, a 33-year-old filmmaker has filed a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking comprehensive details about prohibited words and expressions used by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) during the certification process. The RTI application, filed in the wake of controversial cuts demanded by the CBFC from several Malayalam films, including Shane Nigam-starrer Haal, Private, and Avihitham, asks the board to provide specific information that filmmakers and citizens have long sought but never received in concrete form.

Speaking to Asianet News English, Sreenath said that he filed the RTI application to understand what should filmmakers avoid before writing a script.“Recent attacks on freedom of expression and the increasing censorship of films like Private, Avihitham, and Haal have deeply concerned me. These incidents reflect a worrying trend of silencing artistic voices. It was this growing climate of control that compelled me to file an RTI with the Censor Board, to seek transparency and accountability in how creative expression is being curtailed,” he added.

What Does the RTI Seek?

The application seeks clarity on four critical aspects of the CBFC's functioning:

1. A comprehensive list of words, phrases, or expressions that filmmakers are prohibited from using in films (feature, short, or documentary) during the certification process. 
2.  Copies or extracts of circulars, guidelines, memoranda, or internal communications issued by the CBFC or the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that define or describe objectionable or prohibited words or expressions. 
3.  The latest version of the Guidelines for Certification of Films as followed by the CBFC, if not already available in the public domain.  
4. A written statement under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act confirming whether such a list exists at all.

What is the Significance?

The Kerala High Court is currently hearing a petition filed by the filmmakers of Haal, challenging the CBFC demand for multiple cuts and proposing a two-tier censorship procedure. According to the petition, the two-tier system would involve script-level approval before filming begins, followed by post-production verification to ensure that the final version adheres to the approved script. This, the filmmakers argue, would prevent last-minute censorship shocks that often derail releases and cause financial losses.

The case stems from the CBFC's insistence on 15 to 19 cuts in the film, including the removal of scenes allegedly depicting beef consumption, blurring of certain religious and institutional references, and deletion of dialogues deemed politically or ideologically sensitive. The filmmakers claim these demands are arbitrary, ideologically motivated, and contrary to the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Several Malayalam films have been subjected to censorship in the recent past, including films such as Mohanlal's Empuraan and Suresh Gopi's Janaki v State of Kerala. The Kerala Film Producers Association (KFPA) had also said it would raise the issue with CBFC, arguing that the board's approach undermines artistic freedom. KFPA secretary Listin Stephen had stated that scenes considered normal by Kerala audiences are being restricted without justification.

MENAFN16102025007385015968ID1110205033