Kamal Haasan Slams India’s “Censor Board” Culture

March 21, 2026 Published by indiaglitzcom

Film regulation in India has never been a simple matter of what you can or can’t show on screen. It’s always been a messy, fascinating reflection of our politics, our society, and our ever-changing ideas about freedom. Just recently, Kamal Haasan, one of India’s most legendary actors and a fierce defender of artistic expression, decided it was time to reignite a debate that’s been simmering for decades: how we even talk about film oversight in India.

TL;DR: Key Milestones and Perspectives

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is an important regulatory body in Indian cinema, and it has undergone various changes in its structure and naming over the years.83 to show it was moving away from outright censorship and toward age-based ratings.

“Big controversies have emerged surrounding various films and documentaries, including Vijay’s film Jana Nayagan and the documentary The Voice of Hind Rajab.”b, are keeping this issue in the spotlight, fueling demands for real transparency and a true certification system.

The Legacy of Censorship and India’s Shift to Certification

Historical Roots: From Censor Board to CBFC

The system for regulating films in India is nothing neIts story begins with the establishment of regulations governing film content in India, which led to the formation of what everyone simply knew as the Censor Board.rd. For years, this body had the power to chop up scenes, demand changes to the plot, or even ban a film entirely. The official reasons often revolved around protecting morality, decency, and national security, or preventing social chaos.

Then, in 1983, everything was supposed to change, at least on paper. After years of heated debates and constant pressure from filmmakers and free speech advocates, the name was officially changed to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). What was the point of this rebranding? It was meant to signal a huge philosophical shift. The board’s job was now to ‘certify’ films for specific audiences, using ratings like U (Universal), U/A (Parental Guidance), and A (Adults Only), not to act as a moral police force deciding what was artistically good or bad. But as Kamal Haasan constantly reminds us, old habits die hard.

What’s Really Changed? High-Profile Examples

Just changing the name on the door didn’t magically erase the controversies. The year 2026 alone gave us two perfect examples of how the old tensions are still very much alive:

• Jana Nayagan, the highly anticipated Tamil movie starring the actor-turned-politician Vijay, was held up indefinitely. It failed to get a certificate from the CBFC, and the filmmakers were left frustrated, citing political pressure and the fact that “no clear reason” was given for the hold-up. Fans were left wondering if they’d ever see the film.
• Then there was the Oscar-nominated documentary The Voice of Hind Rajab. This powerful film, telling the story of a young Palestinian child, was flat-out denied a theatrical certification in India. This move immediately sparked questions about whether sensitive political topics are still a no-go zone, regardless of a film’s artistic merit or global acclaim.

So even with a new name and a system theoretically built for rating instead of banning, the real-world results suggest the ghost of censorship is still haunting the halls of the CBFC.

Kamal Haasan’s Call for Linguistic and Ideological Clarity

Why Kamal Haasan Takes Issue with ‘Censor Board’

When Kamal Haasan picks a fight over words, he’s not just being picky. He’s been through the wringer himself. Who can The firestorm around his film Vishwaroopam in 2013 left him in a challenging position, leading to significant changes in the film.ke cuts after manufactured outrage threatened to derail his entire project. For Haasan, every time a journalist or a fan uses the phrase ‘censor board,’ it reinforces the dangerous and false idea that direct censorship is still the law of the land.

He recently took to social media to set the record straight once again: “After many years of discussions, the word ‘censor’ has been removed and changed to the Central Board of Film Certification in India.” He stressed that the media has a huge responsibility here. By sticking to the old, inaccurate term, he argues, we keep alive the idea that the board is a gatekeeper, when its actual job should be classification, not restriction.

Media Narratives Matter

You see this disconnect everywhere. Flip open an entertainment news site or watch a debate about a new movie, and you’re almost guaranteed to hear someone, sometimes even an official, talk about the ‘censor board.’ Haasan says this does more than just mislead people; it actively harms the public’s understanding of creative freedom. The impact is more than just linguistic. It subtly tells us that heavy-handed control over art is normal and expected, rather than something outdated we should have left behind.

Creative Freedom, Democracy, and the Problem with Censorship

Certification vs. Censorship: Is India There Yet?

The difference between certification and censorship sounds pretty simple, but in the real world, it’s a lot more complicated. Certification is supposed to provide guidance, like a traffic sign that warns you about the road ahead so you can decide if you want to take it. Censorship, on the other hand, is the roadblock itself. It forces filmmakers to turn back, find another route, or abandon their journey altogether.

Haasan’s position is crystal clear: in a democracy, the government shouldn’t have a veto over art. He points to what’s happening in other parts of the world, and even in regional industries like Tamil cinema, as proof that you can have a thriving film culture where movies are “rated, not banned.” Let the audience decide.

Still, as we’ve seen with recent events, the promise of a simple certification system often crashes into the hard reality of political influence, especially when a film dares to touch on a sensitive subject. Legal battles, last-minute demands for cuts, and mysterious delays are still all-too-familiar headaches for creators across India.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the role of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)?
  The CBFC’s main job is to certify films for public viewing in India. It does this by giving them a rating based on their content, like U, U/A, A, or S (for specialized audiences). But even with “certification” in its name, it can still demand cuts or, in some cases, refuse to certify a film at all.
• How is certification different from censorship?
  Think of it this way: certification is like giving a movie an age rating and a content warning (like “violence” or “language”) so that viewers and parents can make an informed choice. Censorship is when an authority steps in to ban content or force changes because it deems it unacceptable, which is a much stricter and more subjective process.
• Why does the media still use the term ‘censor board’?
  Honestly, it’s mostly an old habit that’s tough to break. The name was used for so long that it just stuck. But using ‘censor board’ consistently misrepresents what the CBFC is supposed to be doing and keeps alive an outdated idea of top-down control.
• Has film regulation in India improved since the shift to certification?
  Yes and no. On paper, the system has definitely moved in the right direction, toward more transparency and artistic freedom. But recent controversies (like the stalls for Jana Nayagan) show that for politically sensitive movies, the reality doesn’t always live up to the promise.
• What does Kamal Haasan propose for the future of Indian cinema?
  He’s calling for a system where films are only classified for audiences, never censored. He’s urging everyone, especially the media, to start using the right language to reflect this goal. For Haasan, it’s simple: a modern, democratic nation should prioritize creative freedom and trust its citizens.

Reflect: The Ongoing Debate Over Film Regulation

The story of how we regulate movies in India is far from over. That big switch from a ‘Censor Board’ to a ‘Certification Board’ was a moment of hope, a promise of a freer and fairer space for artists. But as the headlines and court cases of 2026 show us, there’s still a huge gap between what the system is supposed to be and what it actually is. Kamal Haasan’s message is both simple and urgent: if we can’t even get the language right, how can we ever hope to get the system right? Think about the films that have changed your perspective, or the ones you never even got a chance to see. Is film regulation really about protecting the public, or is it about stifling creativity? Maybe it’s time we all joined the conversation.