What exactly is it about a woman walking away that India's censors cannot stomach? In 1950, a girl named Usha walked across a Hindi film screen and did two unforgivable things. She left her abusive husband. And she took a factory job.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was only one year old at the time when it first issued an 'A' certificate to a film titled 'Hanste Aansoo' that starred Madhubala, who was 16 at the time. The issue the CBFC had with the film was not due to any nudity. Still, it was because they took issue with Usha's (Madhubala's character in the movie) experience: she came to realise she was unhappy with her current life and decided to leave.

75 years later, India's censorship apparatus is still making the same calculations - in 'Fire', where two women sought solace in each other and movie theatres were ransacked; in 'The Dirty Picture', Silk Smitha embraced her sexuality and would not let the conventional narrative define her; in 'Lipstick Under My Burkha', four women wanted to improve their lives, and the CBFC believed that seeking out pleasure was "above that of existence".

The crime, in each case, was the same: the woman had decided! This article asks the question the Board has never formally answered: when certification punishes conduct rather than content, is that regulation or moral policing with a rubber stamp?

The Architecture of Suppression
Misunderstanding of the 'A' Certificate and Its Application - The 'A' certificate has always been construed as some content advisory - it is not. By law, an 'A' certificate restricts a film from being shown to an adult audience, while in practice, an 'A' certificate limits access to the screen and indicates to a distributor that they are taking a risk by distributing the film. For larger studio films with marketing budgets and political capital at stake, obtaining an 'A' Certificate can be managed. For independent feature-length films, especially women-directed films with less margin for error and less institutional support, obtaining an 'A' certificate is an effective way to kill a film slowly but surely.

In considering the context of the certificate, one can see the absurdity. For example, the film Insaf Ka Tarazu (1980) received an 'A' certificate but was endorsed by the Board of Censorship as "a positive anti-rape film." Conversely, films like Hawalaat (1987), which have three depictive rape sequences and two provocative cabaret sequences, received a 'U' (universal) classification.

In addition, films that have been given a 'clean chit' (sanctioned) by the CBFC, such as Gangajal, Omkara, and Delhi Belly, which have extensive profanity and graphic violence in their content, were registered clean or without the hand-wringing created by the institutional establishment when there is a film that depicts a woman making decisions about her own life. This is not a coincidence; it is a policy created by the CBFC.

The Ledger of Lady-Oriented Films
The fact that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) used an ambiguous phrase when refusing certification for Lipstick Under My Burkha (2017) is not merely an error of grammar. The refusal letter states that the "story is lady-oriented; their fantasy about life", meaning that, according to the CBFC, female fantasies exist beyond females' actuality.

The CBFC's refusal to certify Lipstick Under My Burkha was, therefore, twofold: women's interior space is adult material; all women's fantasies are above their social station.

Alankrita Shrivastava's film follows four women in a town in India: an ageing woman reading an erotic novel; a young woman maintaining a secret relationship with a man while her family arranges an acceptable husband for her; a Muslim woman who sings at her husband's request but whose husband thinks she exists in silence; and a college girl experiencing desire and ambition at once.

Like Lipstick Under My Burkha, these women have received multiple awards worldwide: the Oxfam Award for Gender Equality at the Mumbai Film Festival, the Spirit of Asia Award at the Tokyo International Film Festival, and the Audience Award at the Glasgow Film Festival. As for the women, their fantasy was globally apparent and well known to everyone except the Board located in Mumbai.

The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal ultimately ruled that the actions made by the CBFC (Censor Board of Film Certification) didn't conform to the law. They said there should never be a ban on women-oriented films or films with sexual fantasies and expressing inner desires about women.

Eventually, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) overruled the CBFC's decision. It determined that the CBFC "misdirected itself" and that "there can be no restriction on a woman-centred or a woman's fantasy film or a film which demonstrates the woman's inner desires." With some cuts, the film has been granted an A rating. The language used by the CBFC ("woman-centred" and "their fantasy over their reality") has been retained for the record. This language is far more important than any analysis by a censorship analyst, as it is a self-explanatory statement by the Board.

This isn't the only incident of the use of the CBFC as a weapon against women searching for things. Deepa Mehta's Fire (1998), about two women who are sisters-in-law and fall in love with each other, was originally rated by the CBFC and went on to be attacked by Shiv Sena militants in theatres all over Bombay, Delhi and Pune.

The CBFC recertified the film because of government/political pressure; this was done retroactively to the demands placed on them by the street violence. The CBFC had retroactively completed the process that would have happened had the street violence not occurred. Mehta's Water (2005), about widows in Varanasi, was never even completed filming in India after protests. The production company fled to Sri Lanka. No formal censorship. Just the threat of it, which proved equally effective.

Shekhar Kapur's unwavering depiction of Phoolan Devi in Bandit Queen (1994) - having an extended fight with the Board and needing Phoolan Devi herself to have objected to make the case more difficult politically before its release, with cuts to the scenes. Due to the graphic depiction of Phoolan Devi's rape, the Board thought that it would be too graphic; consequently, the atrocity of rape in Phoolan Devi's life is depicted so graphically for a reason, and, therefore, it was less understandable to the Board than the actual footage.

Kareena Kapoor's performance as a sex worker in Chameli (2003) demonstrates the complexity of the film's moral position and how the rating system can reflect societal values rather than content. The film was rated A, not because of the nature of its content, but because something about a woman who tells her own story without embarrassment disturbs people.

The Dirty Picture (2011) received an 'A' rating from the CBFC, not because of the film's content, but because of how Vidya Balan as Silk Smitha was represented (as not being a victim) and how she was punished and chose her career, her lovers, and how she presented herself.

As the film portrays her, she made choices for herself, but this did not excuse her suffering (and she suffered) from the CBFC's perspective. She never said sorry. An 'A' rating is unacceptable for a man or for a woman who will die, and her image will live on as a subject rather than an object of the film in which she portrays a woman in a female character within a male-dominant story.

Some other films also fill out the record. Angry Indian Goddesses (2015), the first Indian female buddy film, received an A rating for content that was unnoticed in a male ensemble cast. The film Parched (2015), directed by Leena Yadav, depicts a woman in rural India who is escaping from domestic violence and sexual oppression and received an A rating as well.

Another film, Margarita with a Straw (2014), tells the story of a young woman with cerebral palsy who lives her life and forms relationships beyond her disability, and it received an A rating. The film Aligarh (2015) describes the story of a college professor who was dismissed from his job after being outed for being a gay man and received an A rating. Additionally, Bollywood's first mainstream same-sex love story, Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga (2019), which featured two women in love, received an A rating.

The most prominent example missing from this list is Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, whose core romantic premise is a man following a woman from India to Europe and finding ways to touch her. At the same time, she is completely asleep to see whether she is "that type of girl," as opposed to being "one that has been touched," and receiving a U (Universal) certificate from the Censor Board.

Over time, this process has not diminished but has shifted to an alternative market. In March 2026, when 'The Voice of Hind Rajab (an Oscar-nominated film about the death of a five-year-old Palestinian girl living in Gaza) was released by way of the CBFC for internal reasons, to the (conservative) belief that releasing the film would adversely impact Indian-Israeli relationships.

Ultimately, the CBFC acquiesced to public pressure and approved screening the film without any cuts to the original version (i.e., the film's content was never the reason for the aforementioned censorship). In 2025, 'Superman' directed by James Gunn) had almost 40 seconds of scenes cut from it before distribution in India - including a 33-second mid-air kiss with Lois Lane, which was also determined to be too sensual; while films containing extreme violence and gore are routinely released to cinemas with a U certificate.

The CBFC censored Steven Spielberg'sSpielberg's Day (2026) by muting all uses of the word "sex" and two uses of an expletive word before approving it for a U/A 13+ rating, while leaving the visuals completely untouched—censorship for the horror film's release of a violent scene, a sex scene. Closure to home, the Board denied a U/A rating for Akshay Kumar's OMG (Kumar's 3), which was designed for young adults to learn about sex education.

The CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) is exerting increasing influence over South Indian films, particularly regarding the religious sensitivities of their titles. For example, due to this, Sarathkumar's name was changed to S Saraswathi after Sita was used as the name in the case of Janayear'se vs State of Kerala, State of Kerala, where 96 cuts were originally requested but later reduced to two after the title was changed. Reliance on forced name changes has occurred with Telugu films, such as Hey Bhagavan! and Couple Friendly, where Couple Friendly ultimately did not change the title and received an 'A' certification as a result.

Multiple industry sources suggest that these last-minute changes disrupt months of promotional efforts and are detrimental to box office revenues for smaller productions that do not have the resources to challenge the CBFC in court. In addition to the above examples, there are many other instances where CBFC cuts (such as where beef biryani and religious dialogue were removed from the Malayalam film Haal) have resulted in industry disputes over box office revenue losses (for example, Rajinikanth's estimated loss between 40-50 crores as a result of a cremation scene). Many industry members continue to face delays in receiving CBFC certification, like Vijay Telepathy's final film 'Jana Nayagan', which has yet to receive its CBFC certification.

In contrast, Kabir Singh (2019), in which the male protagonist was depicted as a destructive property bully, a menace towards women, and claimed to have the authority over the body of a woman he had only spoken to once, received an A (adult) certificate from the Censor Board with very little public outcry or delay.

Meanwhile, Animal (2023), depicting over four hours of extreme male violence and unapologetic misogyny, received an A certificate from the Censor Board following minor cuts. The films that drew the most scrutiny from the Censor Board, endured the longest delays, and faced the most arduous certification processes were those in which the female characters had agency, rather than those in which they were victimised.

Udta Punjab and the Political Reveal

There are many lessons to be learned from the Udta Punjab case (2016). The reason behind the Board's request for 89 cuts (including the removal of the name of Punjab (the state where the movie was filmed), all city names, names of politicians who feature in the film, and references to places) was not to protect viewers from drug use.

The movie was not simply promoting drug use-it was advocating against it. The 13 items on the CBFC's list of required cuts (as shown in the Bombay High Court ruling, which overturned all but one of the CBFC's required cuts) demonstrate that the Board was acting as a reputation manager for a state government (and potentially for an overall political establishment) that was attempting to avoid accountability for the current drug crisis.

The ruling by the Bombay High Court stated that removing the actual names of places in Punjab does not protect individuals from harm, but rather protects those in power (e.g., those responsible for Punjab's drug problem) from being embarrassed. The judges agreed on the merits of all CBFC's proposed cuts. It can be reasonably concluded that the CBFC moved (with its response to Udta Punjab) from moral-policing to political-policing. This difference is very significant because it indicates that the CBFC is not solely about protecting those in authority. The CBFC is, in fact, primarily about controlling the stories told about or by certain people.

The Takeaway
The Central Board of Film Certification has never clearly distinguished between censorship of movie content based on its merit and censorship based on fear of viewer reactions. For example, films like Mardaani (2014) and NH10 (2015) have both been classified as having "adult content"; however, the women depicted in both movies were never viewed as adult enough to be certified.

By contrast, the character in Queen (2014) — who travels alone and makes independent choices to uphold her autonomy — received an "A" certificate from the CBFC solely because she was not perceived to have made independent choices.

The A classification, as defined by the CBFC, was assigned to Hanste Aansoo (1950) and Lipstick Under My Burkha (2017). The A has not served as a means of regulating content within each of the provided nations. Rather, it serves to control the value placed on those who are viewed as making "adult" choices and on those decisions. An example of this is Usha leaving her husband and four female friends,s desiring things. A province's drug crisis implicating its government was, briefly, adult content too — until a court said otherwise.

The Board has never been asked to account for the cumulative message of that ledger. The cumulative message is this: in India's official moral science of cinema, a woman's desire is a category of certification. Her refusal to comply is the most adult content of all. And the cowardice, in the end, is not the filmmaker's.