Honey Trehan Questions New CBFC Rules, Raises Concerns Over Freedom of Expression

MUMBAI, Nov 3: Filmmaker Honey Trehan has strongly criticised the latest guidelines issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), expressing concern over their possible implications for freedom of expression and the creative independence of filmmakers.

Trehan, whose film Satluj encountered a prolonged certification process before its release on a streaming platform, voiced his objections through an Instagram Story on Tuesday. His reaction came a day after the newly reconstituted film certification body issued a fresh advisory outlining changes to the procedures followed while examining films for certification.

Expressing his dissatisfaction with the revised guidelines, Trehan said they reflected an atmosphere of fear and authoritarianism rather than encouraging a democratic approach towards freedom of speech. His comments have once again brought attention to the longstanding debate surrounding censorship, artistic expression and the regulatory responsibilities of the film certification authority.

The controversy comes at a time when filmmakers and industry professionals are closely examining the implications of changes introduced by the certification board. While the CBFC is responsible for ensuring that films comply with applicable certification requirements, creative professionals have frequently raised concerns about delays, modifications and uncertainty surrounding the approval process.

According to the advisory issued on Monday, the board will not accept incomplete films for certification. This means filmmakers will be required to submit completed versions of their projects rather than seeking approval while portions of the work remain unfinished.

The advisory also clarified that previously announced release dates and promotional titles would not automatically influence the certification process. A film’s proposed title will remain subject to examination and may be reviewed or modified by the examining or revising committee.

These provisions have attracted attention because film production and distribution involve several stages of planning, including marketing campaigns, promotional activities, advance bookings and arrangements with cinema exhibitors. Any uncertainty regarding certification or titles can potentially complicate these preparations.

Trehan’s criticism is particularly significant because of his previous experience with Satluj, a project that remained at the centre of a prolonged dispute over film certification and its eventual availability to audiences.

The film, initially titled Punjab ’95, is based on the life of Sikh human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. It explores a sensitive chapter of Punjab’s history and the activist’s efforts to highlight alleged human rights violations.

The project faced a lengthy certification battle, with the makers encountering repeated delays before eventually releasing it on ZEE5 in July 2026 under the title Satluj. The film, however, was removed from the streaming platform within a few days of becoming available.

The Centre had raised national security concerns relating to the film, while its makers maintained that the reasons cited for the controversy did not accurately reflect their position.

The developments surrounding the project also attracted attention because of its lead actor Diljit Dosanjh, who had expressed apprehension about the film’s continued availability on the platform.

For Trehan, the latest CBFC advisory has therefore revived concerns arising from his earlier experience. His response highlights the difficulties that filmmakers working on historically sensitive or socially significant subjects may encounter while navigating the certification process.

The film certification body itself has undergone a major restructuring. The board was reconstituted after a gap of nine years, despite its designated term being three years. Former Prasar Bharati chief executive Shashi Shekhar Vempati was appointed its chairperson.

The newly constituted board includes several prominent personalities from the entertainment industry, including actors Preity Zinta, Pankaj Tripathi, Prosenjit Chatterjee, Rupali Ganguly, Manoj Joshi, Pallavi Joshi and Suniel Shetty. Filmmaker Priyadarshan, music composer Ricky Kej and producer Supriya Yarlagadda are also among its members.

The new advisory is the board’s first major communication following its reconstitution. Its provisions have placed renewed focus on the relationship between the certification authority and filmmakers, particularly regarding the timing of submissions, the examination of titles and the importance of completing projects before approaching the board.

For film producers, certification is an essential part of the release process. A film must pass through the prescribed examination before it can be publicly exhibited in accordance with the applicable rules. Producers also need sufficient time to coordinate distribution arrangements and promotional campaigns.

The requirement to submit completed films could encourage a more structured examination process by ensuring that the board assesses the final version rather than unfinished material. At the same time, the clarification regarding release dates and titles indicates that commercial announcements will not determine the outcome of certification.

However, Trehan’s objection reflects a broader concern within sections of the film industry about how regulatory procedures are implemented and whether they provide adequate certainty to creative professionals.

The debate is not limited to the certification of individual films. It also concerns the space available to filmmakers to explore complicated historical, political and social subjects without facing unpredictable obstacles during the release process.

Meanwhile, another film-related legal development has added to the industry’s discussions about censorship and responsibility in cinema.

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre, the CBFC and Zee Studios concerning the upcoming Sunny Deol-starrer Suryaa: Ant Se Aarambh Tak. The action followed a petition filed by four doctors who objected to the film’s teaser, alleging that it portrays doctors working in private hospitals as corrupt and could encourage hostility towards healthcare professionals.

The petitioners argued that the promotional material makes serious allegations against medical practitioners, including claims of unnecessary medical tests, excessive billing and commission-based practices.

They also raised concerns over the teaser’s description of the film as being inspired by unbelievable true events, arguing that the presentation could lead viewers to interpret its fictional narrative as a factual account.

The doctors sought a stay on the film and the removal of its teaser from YouTube. However, the court did not issue an interim order and instead sought responses from the concerned parties. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on November 16, ahead of the film’s planned November 20 release.

The two developments have brought different aspects of film regulation into focus. While Trehan has questioned the broader implications of the CBFC’s new procedures, the legal challenge involving Suryaa concerns the potential impact of a film’s promotional content on a particular professional community.

The latest controversy surrounding the certification guidelines is likely to keep the discussion over artistic freedom and regulatory oversight alive within the Indian entertainment industry.

For filmmakers, the central issue remains the need for a transparent and predictable certification framework that protects legitimate regulatory interests while allowing creative projects to reach audiences without unnecessary uncertainty.