Veteran Director Fires Back at India’s Film Certification Body, Demanding Its Complete Abolition

Veteran Director Fires Back at India’s Film Certification Body, Demanding Its Complete Abolition

One of India’s most outspoken filmmakers has launched a fierce public attack on the country’s film certification authority, calling the institution an embarrassing relic that fails modern audiences and undermines democratic values.

The controversy centres on the regulatory body’s decision to trim content from a Hollywood horror release — despite already restricting it to adult viewers only. Roughly 38 seconds of footage were removed, including scenes of intense violence and a brief sexual sequence, a move that has drawn widespread frustration from audiences who argue that an adults-only classification should be sufficient to manage viewer expectations without further interference.

The veteran director took to social media to make his feelings unmistakably clear. He argued that any citizen deemed responsible enough to cast a vote, run a household, or lead a business enterprise is fully capable of deciding what films they choose to watch — and that a government-appointed panel should have no place making that decision for them.

Sources reveal that the director’s frustration extends well beyond this single case. He highlighted the glaring contradiction in a digital landscape where trimmed footage routinely circulates across streaming platforms, social media feeds, and torrenting sites within hours of a theatrical release — often drawing far greater viewership than the original cinema screening ever would.

Entertainment circles suggest the irony is not lost on industry observers. The very sequence removed from the theatrical cut reportedly found its way across short-form video platforms almost immediately, with insiders noting it attracted significantly more attention online than it ever would have on the big screen.

The director’s proposed solution is straightforward: replace mandatory cuts with transparent content advisories, trusting audiences to make informed choices. He also issued a pointed warning to the film industry itself, suggesting that every time creators accept editorial interference without challenge, they strengthen the hand of those imposing restrictions.

Critics note that this is far from the filmmaker’s first confrontation with censorship authorities. His history of clashes with the certification system stretches back decades, lending weight to what he frames as a systemic failure rather than an isolated grievance.

Whether the broader industry will rally around such a bold call for institutional reform — or continue negotiating quietly behind closed doors — remains the defining question hanging over Indian cinema’s ongoing battle between artistic freedom and regulatory control.

• Entertainment Desk, Studio Carry On Harry

—