CBFC under fire over transparency and cultural portrayals
Hyderabad: The controversy surrounding the certification of Sumathi Sathakam has once again exposed cracks in the functioning of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), raising serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and cultural sensitivity.
Early on, the storm first broke with the Telugu film Commitment, whose certification records published by CBFC Hyderabad appeared inconsistent and misleading. Initially, the film produced by Taduri Neelima and Baldev Singh was granted an “A” certificate in January 2021, later modified to “UA” in March 2021. However, subsequent disclosures revealed that the film title that was listed meant no Commitment at all, but “enjoy (No Commitments)”, certified in 2014 under a different producer. This discrepancy has sparked doubts about whether film names, producers, or even content were altered, and why such details were concealed until challenged.
Adding to the controversy, CBFC Hyderabad failed to publish the mandatory cut-list details of the ‘Commitment’. M Kiran Kumar, a research scholar in film studies, pointed out that similar lapses occurred with CBFC Mumbai, which did not release the cut-list for Laal Singh Chaddha. “These lapses undermine CBFC’s credibility as a statutory body entrusted with ensuring transparency in film certification,” he said.
The issue goes beyond procedural lapses. While Sumathi Sathakam is the latest controversy, the Commitment film had reportedly used slokas from the Bhagavad Gita as background scores for scenes falling under ‘A’ certification. Raising concerns about the unchecked misuse of intangible cultural properties. When queried, Member of Parliament Dr K Laxman said that the government at the Centre is committed to protecting cultural and intangible heritage all. However, when brought to his notice about the legislative gap in the existing laws, CBFC, Hyderabad sources clarified that they are not legally mandated to check the legal norms to safeguard intangible properties.
He said that he had to look into the legal gaps to take up the issue about the glaring gap in the regulatory framework, if any. Legal experts argue that inconsistent certification records, unexplained changes in film details, and withholding of mandatory public information demand urgent intervention. Advocate Durga Prasad insists that the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting must step in to streamline CBFC’s functioning and restore credibility.
Beyond procedural irregularities, the CBFC has also faced criticism for permitting films that portray certain communities in a negative light. K Ramesh Babu, an accountant from AS Raonagar, noted that several Telugu films certified by CBFC Hyderabad depict the Reddy community from Rayalaseema as inherently violent and prone to bloodshed, often against the backdrop of factionalism. “The CBFC has allowed similar portrayals of other communities, languages, and even state identities, reinforcing harmful stereotypes.” This is at a time when the Central government talks about and insists on the celebration of diversity of different states and communities under its EK Bharta and Shreshta Bharat, he added.
The ongoing controversies suggest that CBFC’s role as a statutory body is being undermined by opacity, cultural insensitivity, and regulatory gaps. As skeletons continue to tumble out of the closet, the demand for effective oversight grows louder, with calls for reforms that ensure transparency, protect intangible heritage, and prevent the perpetuation of damaging stereotypes.
