The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is currently inhibiting the release of the highly anticipated film ‘Emergency,’ directed by and starring Kangana Ranaut. The movie, which chronicles the life of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, has become the latest flashpoint in the ongoing debates about film censorship in India. Ranaut announced the delay on the social media platform X, previously known as Twitter, on Friday evening, sparking a fresh wave of controversy.
According to Ms. Ranaut, staff members at the CBFC have encountered direct threats related to the film’s contentious content. This hostile environment has reportedly caused the censor board to hesitate in issuing the necessary certification, thereby stalling the movie’s release. Ranaut’s comments have added fuel to an already heated discussion about censorship, freedom of expression, and the political implications embedded within film narratives.
As of Friday evening, Prasoon Joshi, the Chairperson of the CBFC, had not provided a response to queries regarding the matter. However, records available on the CBFC’s official website show that the film had initially been cleared after undergoing a few mandatory modifications. These adjustments included adding onscreen warnings for smoking scenes, muting a “derogatory” term shouted by a crowd in response to a public leader’s death, and replacing the term “Mr. President” with the Hindi equivalent “Rashtrapati ji.” Additionally, certain segments of the film containing statements from former U.S. President Richard Nixon and archival footage from Operation Blue Star required further documentation.
What remains puzzling is how the CBFC is accused of withholding certification for a film that has, by all official accounts, already been certified. Under the revised 2024 certification rules, it is stipulated that a copy of the film’s certificate must accompany the film and be prominently displayed in theaters on all screening days.
. This clause raises the suspicion that the CBFC might have approved the film but withheld the physical certificate, thus preventing the filmmakers from legally screening the film.
This incident is not an isolated case. Earlier this year, the CBFC similarly withheld the certification for ‘Monkey Man,’ a film directed by British actor Dev Patel. According to reports by The Hindu, the board delayed the film’s screening by its examining committee, effectively imposing a de facto ban without following the formal rejection procedures outlined in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The delay in the release of ‘Emergency’ has provoked a significant reaction from both the film industry and the public. Many see it as an illustrative example of how bureaucratic inertia and external pressures can stifle creative expression. Ranaut’s supporters have rallied behind her, framing the situation as a broader struggle against suppression and political interference in the arts. Critics, however, argue that the film’s content needs to be carefully reviewed given its potentially inflammatory subject matter.
This interaction between the CBFC and the filmmakers brings into sharp focus the broader issues of censorship and the extent of artistic liberty in India’s democratic framework. The historical backdrop of Indira Gandhi’s tenure, marked by the infamous Emergency period from 1975 to 1977, remains a sensitive and polarizing topic. The narrative, therefore, needs to be handled responsibly, a concern that the CBFC maintains as part of its mandate to ensure communal harmony and avoid public disorder.
On the industry’s front, this instance exemplifies the chronic struggles filmmakers face in navigating the labyrinthine regulations and sometimes opaque processes of certification. The calls for reform in the certification process have never been louder, with industry veterans urging for clearer guidelines and more transparent operations to prevent such contentious deadlocks.
In the end, the release of ‘Emergency’ stands as a microcosm of the larger battles raging over artistic freedom, censorship, and the role of state institutions in a democratic society. As stakeholders await further clarifications and possible resolutions from the CBFC, the case remains a potent reminder of the complex dynamics at play when art intersects with politics in India.
