Yash Toxic A Certificate Controversy; Indian Movies Censorship History

Yash, the star of K.G.F: Chapter 2, returns with Toxic on 26 August.

The film is already at the centre of a debate over what Indian cinema considers suitable only for adults.

The teaser of the film sparked a debate over the portrayal of women.

The Karnataka State Women’s Commission raised concerns with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

On Aap Ki Adalat, Yash pointed to the film’s tagline, A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups, saying it clearly shows that Toxic is not meant for children.

He also defended the film’s portrayal of female desire and rejected allegations of vulgarity.

The British Board of Film Classification has also rated Toxic 18, citing “strong bloody violence, sex” and flagging threat, horror, language, drugs, sexual violence and sexual threat, injury detail, and suicide and self-harm.

The film can now release. But its certificate comes with one clear restriction: adults only.

The debate around the film may sound modern. But India has been arguing about adult cinema for more than seven decades.

Film censorship began under British rule

Film censorship in India did not begin with the ‘A’ certificate.

The Cinematograph Act of 1918 allowed the British government to regulate the public exhibition of films. Regional censorship boards operated in cities including Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Lahore and Rangoon.

After Independence, India moved towards a centralised system. The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 1949 introduced two broad categories: U, for unrestricted viewing, and A, for adults.

The Central Board of Film Censors was formally set up in 1951. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 then brought the national certification system under one law.

‘Hanste Ansu’ became India’s first A-rated film

Hanste Ansu, directed by K.B. Lal and starring Madhubala and Motilal, was released in 1950 and is widely reported as the first Indian film to receive an ‘A’ certificate.

But the reason was not what you might expect. The film did not contain the kind of sexual content that audiences today usually associate with an adult rating.

The Censor Board reportedly objected to its title, Hanste Ansu, which literally means ‘laughing tears’. The question was simple: how can tears laugh?

The film was a family comedy-drama, but the Board also took issue with its depiction of domestic violence and what it saw as the double meaning of the title.

That was enough for the Board to give the film an ‘A’ certificate.

Chetna made adult cinema commercial

By 1970, B.R. Ishara’s Chetna showed how the meaning of an ‘A’ certificate was beginning to change.

The film explored the life of a sex worker, her exploitation and her struggle to find dignity and acceptance.

It received an adult certificate after the Censor Board objected to certain scenes and visuals, reportedly including a shot of a whisky bottle and shots showing actor Rehana Sultan’s legs.

The provocative publicity around Rehana Sultan became part of Chetna’s identity.

The film went on to become a commercial success, showing that an adult rating did not necessarily keep a film from finding a mainstream audience.

Garm Hava and the political battle over censorship

Three years later, in 1973, M.S. Sathyu’s Garm Hava faced a different kind of censorship battle.

Set after Partition, the film followed a Muslim family struggling to remain in India as relatives left for Pakistan.

Filmmaker Sathyu later said the film took nearly 11 months to receive certification because authorities were uncertain about how audiences might react to its subject.

Sathyu knew then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi personally and approached her about the film. He later recalled that she saw it and admired it. Her intervention helped clear the way for its release.

Unlike Chetna, the concern here was not primarily sex, nudity or violence.

It was the subject itself.

Together, these cases show how censorship could work on two different levels.

Sometimes, the concern was about what appeared on screen, such as sex, violence or language.

At other times, it was about the subject a film chose to explore, especially when it touched on politically or socially sensitive issues.

Who decides what is “adult”?

Today, the process begins with an Examining Committee (EC), which watches a film and recommends a certificate.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) can ask filmmakers to modify or remove certain portions before granting certification. If the filmmaker seeks a review, the matter can be referred to a Revising Committee (RC).

The certification system has also evolved.

Films can now receive U, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+, A or S certificates, depending on their content and intended audience.

The ‘A’ certificate itself is straightforward: it means the film is restricted to adults.

But certification is not only about age. Under the law, the authorities can also consider factors such as public order, decency, morality, national security, defamation and whether a film could incite an offence.

That is where the grey area begins.

What one generation may consider indecent or objectionable can seem ordinary to the next.

When filmmakers stopped fearing of this certificate

For years, an ‘A’ certificate was seen as a commercial risk because it kept children and family audiences out of cinemas.

That began to change in the 2010s.

Delhi Belly (2011) became one of the prominent examples. Director Abhinay Deo later recalled that the filmmakers had told the CBFC: “Please give us an adults-only certificate.”

The makers were willing to accept a restricted audience rather than remove the language, humour and themes they considered central to the film.

The ‘A’ certificate was no longer always something filmmakers wanted to avoid. Sometimes, it became the price of creative freedom..

When an A-rated film entered the family living room

Television created a different problem.

The Dirty Picture (2011), starring Vidya Balan, was made for an adult audience and became a major theatrical success. But when it was prepared for television, the film faced extensive cuts and a different certification.

In 2017, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry advised that the film be telecast only after 11 pm. The planned television premiere was eventually cancelled.

The controversy raised a new question: if an adult film is acceptable in a cinema hall, what happens when the same film enters a family living room?

The answer was no longer just about the certificate. It was about where, when and for whom the film was being shown.

Finally, certification was not the final battle

Some films faced battles even after, or alongside, the CBFC process.

Bandit Queen faced objections over its depiction of sexual violence, caste oppression and the life of Phoolan Devi. After a prolonged legal battle, the Supreme Court upheld the film’s ‘A’ certificate, allowing its release.

Fire, despite receiving certification, faced protests and attacks on cinemas in several places. The film was sent back for review and was eventually cleared again without cuts.

Black Friday faced a different problem. Its release was delayed after an accused in the 1993 Mumbai bombings case argued that the film could prejudice the ongoing trial. The court deferred its release until the legal proceedings progressed.

Lipstick Under My Burkha shows why calling every such dispute a ‘censor board ban’ can be misleading.

The CBFC initially refused certification, but the filmmakers challenged the decision before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal overturned the refusal and directed the CBFC to certify the film with some changes.

Different films. Different battles. And often, the fight over a film did not end when the certificate was issued.

Graphics- Anas Shakir