1

Understanding censorship in an Indian context- politics behind the censor board of

India.

What is the role played by CBFC in the censorship of films in India- are they influenced by
cultural politics and ideologies of the ruling government, or reflective of the political
attitudes towards social issues in the country?

Looking at it through the controversial release of the mainstream Bollywood film ‘UDTA
PUNJAB’ released in 2016.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of political economy is important not just in the context of international
development communication, but also in the context of the functioning of smaller agencies
within national governments, especially of developing nations. India, the largest democracy
in the world, boasts of a constitution which guarantees its citizens fundamental rights like
Right to Equality, Freedom of Religion and Cultural and Educational rights, which includes
the Freedom of Speech and Expression (Dalal, 2009). This freedom is extended to the media-
newspapers, magazines, television, radio and even films. However, the existence of bodies
under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, like the Central Board of Film
Certification i.e CBFC, questions the actual freedom film makers have, and the role
censorship plays in the Indian society.

Cinema is seen as a tool supplementing social change movements, especially in a developing

nation like India. With 2,016 million film goers just in the year 2015 (UNESCO, 2015), films
have the power to impact minds and help break taboos that exist in society. We have seen
films like Hansal Mehta’s Aligarh (2016) on homosexuality, Onir’s My Brother Nikhil (2005)
on AIDS, Anirudh Chaudhary’s Pink (2016) challenging societies views of women or Deepa
Mehta’s Water (2007) on plight of widows, make an impact on the minds of the audience,
aiding on going discussions and debates at a national level, as well as support work being
done by the development sector.

The political economy approach explores the practice of development communication, which
is largely unregulated, especially with accountability, planning and implementation (Enghel,
2015), with a focus on the general outcome rather than the contextual and institutional
 2

conditions that effect the implementation of these communications (Enghel, 2015). In the
case of India, the CBFC acts as a regulatory body for the certification of films before their
release under the mandate of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(cbfcindia.gov.in), guided by the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952. There has been
speculation for decades about the involvement of politics in its daily functioning, especially
relating to decisions made regarding certification, release and bans on films which are
‘taboo’, or which the ruling parties oppose, similar to the idea of favouring narrower visions
of social change driven by commercial agendas and capitalist values (Enghel, 2015) of
political economy ideology.

The Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences defines censorship as “ necessary obligation of the

authority to protect the moral and social order”, which is indirectly imposed by the
Government of India through the CBFC. In this essay, we will explore the history and
functioning of the body, focusing on the Indian Cinematograph Law of 1952 and looking at
the powers the government has in its functioning. We will further understand how these
powers affect the decisions made by the board, and their impact on not only the film industry
and their freedom of speech and expression, but also how it controls the narrative for the
audience, the common man, and if it actually is protecting the moral and social order, or
enforcing ideologies on them. Using the example of the controversy around the popular
mainstream Bollywood movie Udta Punjab (2016), we will understand how closely related
politics is to the certification process, as well as to the decisions made by the then chief
Pahlaj Nihialani. Using the help of secondary research- newspaper coverage, research papers
on censorship in India, as well as understanding the laws that guide the body, the essay aims
to question the ideology behind the political agenda of the CBFC.

History of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC):

The setting up of the CBFC dates back to the early 1900’s, with the passing of the Indian
Cinematograph Act under the colonial rule. With the rise in not only viewership of cinema
but also with films being made by Indians, starting with Raja Harishchandra in 1913
(Bhatia,2018), it became necessary to lay down a set of guidelines to prevent the exhibition
 3

of objectionable films, as well as safeguard the interest of the audience (GOI,1928). ). Under
the Act and leadership of the Committee, no film was allowed to be released without
receiving a certification from the board (GOI,1928). In a ‘Report of the Indian
Cinematograph’ published by the Superintendent Government Press Limited for the general
council to India in 1928, the committee talks about the ‘effect cinema can have on the people
of India’, owing to the conservative society and portrayal of an alien western civilisation in a
lot of American films being showcased in India. This move, motivated by the fear of
‘westernisation and introduction of denationalisation’ (GOI,1928), the committee suggested
laying down a set of rules and guidelines to be followed to screen films, making licenses
mandatory for the public screening of films. The colonial government set up regional censor
boards in Rangoon, Lahore, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta to implement the guidelines laid
down (Bhatia, 2018), who had the power to censor films independently in their regions. The
late 1920’s saw an increase in the support for the Indian Independence movement, and with
it, a grow in the power cinema had to influence the common man. Using the cover of
protecting the sentiments of a conservative society (GOI, 1928), the Censor Board was also
able to check sentiments of communal discord and nationalistic ideas (Chabria, 2013) and
restrict any access to communist or socialistic ideals, their real political intentions (Bhowmik,
2003). The pre-independence censor board believed that the application of rules and
guidelines laid down was where the difficulty arose, and it was the sole discretion of the
censor based on what their perception of the enlightened public opinion was (GOI, 1928).

He is the interpreter of public opinion, and ultimately his decisions derive their
sanction from public opinion. We may say that as far as India is concerned, public opinion is
not sufficiently organised or articulate to make it possible to dispense with censorship.

Post-Independence, with the government working on building the Constitution of

Independent India (Bhowmik, 2002), they chose to retain the colonial system of censorship,
leaving cinema vulnerable to administrative and political pressures (Bhowmik 2002). Cinema
was being associated with negative western influence, and the bureaucracy wanted to keep it
in check. This led to the government centralising power and dismantling the regional censor
boards, bringing under the command of a Central Board of Film Censors in 1951(Bhowmik,
2003), under the now Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
 4

The Indian Cinematograph Act was amended in 1952 with the objective of ensuring films are
‘sensitive to the values and standards of society’ (cbfcindia.gov.in), and laid down formal
rules for certification. The certificates to be issued were:

U:Unrestricted public exhibitions (family friendly)

A: Restricted to Adults

The Act was amended in 1983, with two new categories of certification being added, keeping
in mind the “changes in mindsets of the viewers” (cbfcindia.gov.in):

U/A: Parental Guidance for children below the age of 12 years

S: Restricted to any special class of persons (doctors, scientists etc)

The Act also goes on to give guidelines on what protecting the nationalistic identity of India,
of protecting vulnerable classes, namely children, from ‘bad influences’, and that a film shall
not be certified if it goes against the sovereignty and integrity of India, to name a few
(cbfcindia.gov.in). Under Section 5B(2), the Central Government guides the board to “judge
the film in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact and is examined in the light
of the period depicted in the film” and accordingly grant certificates for public exhibitions of
films.

The process of film certification involves the film makers submitting a proposal to a local
office of the CBFC, and the film is first reviewed by an Executive Committee, or EC who
decide which certificate is appropriate for the film (cbfcindia.gov.in). The panel or committee
consists of 22-25 ‘expert’ members who have knowledge about cinema and can ‘contribute
to the growth of cinema and the arts’ (Gupta, 2016) from different parts of the country,
appointed by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry of the Government of India
(cbfcindia.gov.in). Their role is that of advisory, and are not expected to be involved in the
daily workings of the board. Cuts maybe suggested if the panel feels the film is not fit for
public viewership, and after an agreement with the filmmaker, the certificate is issued and the
film is ready for release (Gupta, 2016). However, this power of the panel and Board has been
misused many a times.
 5

The Act does not, however, give the Board the power to censor films, restricting their role to
mainly certification (Rathore, 2016). We have seen these powers being misused at numerous
occasions, starting with Bhaktha Vidur (1921) being banned by the Madras regional board
because of the close resemblance of the protagonist to Mahatma Gandhi (Dwyer, 2006). Post-
independence, the film Neel Akasher Neechey, made by Mrinal Shah was banned in India in
1959 for two years. The reason given was the ‘political overtones’ of the film which
portrayed a friendship between a Chinese migrant and a Bengali woman, especially as it was
a politically heated period between India and China, right before the war fought between both
nations (Coonoor, 2012).

The Act brings with it an idea of ‘pre-censorship’, giving the powers to the board, regional
offices and the central government to put restrictions and make suggestions before
certification (Rauta, 2018). Under various sections of the Act, like 5(B), 7B(1) etc, the
Central Government has ‘the power to issue directions to the authority to grant certificates to
films, as well as gives them the power to uncertify a previously certified film and suspend
exhibition for a maximum of two months (Rauta, 2018), which indirectly implies the role the
central government has in the functioning of the CBFC. Under the Act, there is an allowance
for each state to have their own State Cinema Regulation Act, giving the power to the
government or District Collector to suspend exhibition of films in ‘special cases’, in spite of
the film receiving a certificate of release from the CBFC (Govt of Kerala, 1988).

Since independence, the Censor Board has banned a number of regional, mainstream
Bollywood and documentary films portraying themes that shook the political status quo,
especially of political parties in power at the central government- films which portrayed
national issues in a negative light have been banned by ruling parties (Kissa Kursi ka and
Aandhi during the emergency by the Congress government) (Dubey 2014), films commenting
on communal violence and riots in particular states like Gujarat and Kashmir have been
banned by state governments, to ‘protect the interests of the audience and prevent further
violence’ (Dubey 2014). Even films with stories revolving around ‘social taboos’ like
homosexuality and widows (Deepa Mehta’s Fire and Water) were banned by Hindu
Fundamentalist groups (Biswas 2014). A lot of these films were released either after battles at
the Supreme Court level, or more interestingly, with a change in government.
 6

As seen above, involvement of various political parties in the workings of the CBFC have
become common, often leading to full blown controversies involving mainstream media and
the film fraternity. One such case is that of the 2016 release Udta Punjab.

Controversy around the Bollywood film “Udta Punjab”

Udta Punjab (Abhishek Chaubey, 2016) is a multi-starrer Bollywood film which was based
on the growing menace of drugs in the northern state of Punjab. The film revolves around the
lives of a pop star, a migrant worker from Bihar, a corrupt police officer and a doctor, who
are at different levels involved and battling the menace (Udta Punjab, 2016). With the local
police and state government involved in the trade, the film shows the effect it has on the
youth of the state and their families, as well as how tightly woven the web is. Based around
the state election time, the police officer, Sartaj Singh and the doctor, Preet Sahani, are on a
mission to expose the politicos behind the trade, after Sartaj’s brother is put in rehab for his
drug addiction (Udta Punjab, 2016). Their hunt goes on to unravel the involvement of the
Chief Minister’s family, which is a comment on the potential real life involvement of the then
CM Prakash Badal’s family in the drug trade in the state (Kant, 2016).

The film, however, came under the scanner of the CBFC, especially the then President Pahlaj
Nihaliani, at the time of certification. After the first review, 13 suggestions were given,
amounting to 89 cuts, were presented to the film makers under various sections of the Indian
Cinematograph Act of 1952 (Vidya, 2016). Amongst these suggestions, was the deletion of
names of major cities in the state like Amritsar, Jalandhar and Chandigarh, along with the
scene which showed a signboard with the name of the state (Chatterjee, 2016). Another
suggestion made was the deletion of close up shots of people injecting themselves with drugs
(Chatterjee, 2016), deemed unacceptable by the film makers. The board’s reasoning behind
the suggestions were that it painted Punjab in negative light, which could affect the state’s
reputation and tourism prospects (Salian, 2016). What was of even greater concern to the
board was the depiction of the government and corrupt police being involved in the drug
trade (Salian, 2016), which was fuel for the controversy that followed. This claim was also
 7

supported by the then ruling Akali Dal Party (Mehta, 2016), making this issue now a political
one. The Akali Dal were in coalition with the BJP and formed the state government. What
also irked the state government was the distribution of drugs amongst the vote bank during
the election campaign in the film, which they believed was false and maligned the party.

The man behind the ruling of the CBFC was Pahlaj Nihaliani, who presided over the board as
the chairperson between 2015-2017 (cbfcindia.gov.in). A film producer and director, he has
worked in the industry for over two decades before being appointed to the CBFC. A self-
proclaimed ‘Modi Chamcha’ (Mehta, 2016) (loosely translates to follower of Narendra Modi,
the Indian Prime Minister), he is an ardent supporter of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), having made a song video praising the work being done by Narendra Modi which was
released online and even played in certain cinema halls (Times of India, Entertainment
Times, 2015). Along with him, three other members were appointed on the board, all of
whom were either BJP leaders, or sympathisers of the parent party Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (Maheshwari, 2015). Previously, he has been accused by other members of the board,
for being a ‘tyrant’ and creating a ‘anarchic environment’ who made suggestions without any
logic or reasoning (DNA, 2015). The new members brought to light the potential political
backing the board had of the ruling BJP party, especially since one of the members even
stood for the 2014 general elections (Maheshwari, 2016). Nihaliani had been accused of
suggesting the cuts under pressure from the Punjab State Government, an accusation he has
denied (The Hindu, 2016).

The state of Punjab was due for elections the following year as the release of the film, a time
where there was growing anger towards the state government amongst the citizens
(Rajshekhar, 2016), and the politicos used the film for their political gain. The government
claimed to have found a solution the growing narcotics issue of the state, that by not talking
about it they would be voted back to power (Rajshekhar, 2016). Nihaliani claims that the
board had followed guidelines from the Act, and that the film was ‘not fit for public viewing’,
and that the film makers and producers had been bribed by opposing political parties to show
the state in a negative light (The Hindu, 2016). This was strongly opposed by the Aam Aadmi
Party, who along with the opposing Congress Party, linked his actions with the upcoming
elections, and used the controversy for their own election campaigns (Vidya, 2016). A
 8

number of politicians even tweeted about the controversy, with Rahul Gandhi from the
Congress tweeting “Punjab has a crippling drug problem. Censoring #UdtaPunjab will not
fix it. The Government must accept the reality and find solutions”, with others tweeting their
support to Kashyap, the co-producer. Kashyap, in return, tweeted back asking the parties to
not “colour his fight with political affiliation”, and that this fight was that between the chair
person and the film makers (Vidya, 2016).

Without official notice from the CBFC in writing, the film makers were not able to get it
reviewed by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, or FCAT, and with the constant
attacks from the chairperson of the board and politicos (Maheshwari, 2016), the makers were
forced to take the matter to court (Bhasin, 2016), a mere few day before the official release
date of the film. The team moved the Bombay High Court, whose verdict came in support of
the film. In their verdict, the court made clear that the movie did not intend to ‘malign the
state or its people’, and ‘wants to save people from drugs’ (Bhasin, 2016). They went on to
refuse the board’s claim that the signboard Punjab shown would affect the sovereignty of the
country, with the judge saying they will not support this suggestion (Bhasin, 2016). In
response to the accusation that the film was made to malign the state before elections, the
court suggested that elections were being held in seven states, and is not targeting Punjab
(Mehta,2016). The court went on the give the verdict to allow the release the film with only
one cut, and pushed the board to issue the ‘A’ certificate immediately for the film release
(Bhasin,2016). The court also suggested that the audience was ‘mature enough to decide what
was right and wrong’, pointing to the claim that the film was not ready for public viewing
(Thakur, 2016). What came with the verdict was a comment from the Bombay High Court on
the workings of the CBFC:

“The CBFC was not empowered by law to censor films, as the word ‘censor’ was not
included in the Cinematograph Act. The audience is mature enough to decide what it wants”

This statement brings to light the functioning of the board, and the misuse of power on their
part for years, moving from the debate around freedom of expression towards a politicisation
of creativity (Bhattacharya, 2016). The CBFC is still ruled by the outdated Cinematograph
Act of 1952, without keeping up with the change in times and thoughts of the audience,
unfortunately still being referred to (or even calling themselves) the ‘Censor Board’ which by
 9

law it is not (Gupta, 2016). The board needs to understand the difference between censorship
and certification, and pull itself out of the lull of the British Era who intended to censor media
for the audience.

Conclusion

The CBFC has faced a number of controversies since Independence, leading to the film
fraternity and the common citizen questioning the functioning of the body. Whether it is the
appointment of members of the advisory council, the role of the central government in its
functioning, or the idea of what a ‘mature audience’ is, the necessity of the existence of such
a body has become the question of the hour, on top of analysing the political interference in
its daily functioning for decades.

Looking at the controversial working of the board, as well as the Act which guides it, a few
recommendations can be presented:

1. Amendment of the Indian Cinematograph Act:

The existing Act still follows the guidelines laid down in 1952 (barring the new
certification added in 1983), which some believe are ‘archaic and outdated’ (Gupta,
2016), since those guidelines were first laid down by the British Raj. Major
suggestions to amend the Act were made in 2013 by retired Chief Justice Mukul
Mudgal, and in 2016 by revered film maker Shyam Benegal, both of whom pushed
for autonomy of the board and a change in the appointment procedure of the
members. Both petitions recommended that the CBFC stick to certification alone,
identifying which category of certification the film falls under and not dwell into the
act of censorship as they have in the past (Benegal, 2016), and to conduct a study of
the impact cinema has on the audience, which would provide a base for the committee
to make their recommendations on (Benegal, 2016). However, none of these
proposals have been implemented, and have also resulted in the removal of chair
 10

persons because of their suggestions (as was the case in 2002 with Vijay Anand)
(Bhatia, 2018). Another draft proposal was submitted in the Lok Sabha in August
2018 and discussions are underway in the Parliament (Rauta, 2018). Unless the laws
are amended, there will be continued interference by the government in the working
of the CBFC, and movies will continue to be either banned, or forced to be edited by a
board of political loyalists.

2. Keep politics out of the CBFC:

Like Pahlaj Nihaliani, many other chair persons and members of the executive
committee have been appointed by the ruling party because of their allegiance to
them, as well as removed from their positions with a change in Government. There
have also been cases when Chair Persons, like Anupam Kher, have been sacked under
pressure from political parties, in his case the Communist Party India (Marxist) as a
part of the UPA Government’s ‘detoxification drive’. There is a level of uncertainty in
the functioning of the body with political involvement, which makes it even more
necessary to ensure that politics is kept out of it. In the proposals to amend the Act,
recommendations include the appointment of the members of the board being
apolitical, with appointments being based on merit and qualifications rather than
allegiance, thus ensuring the decisions and certification are unbiased.

3. Understand the audience, rather than making assumptions:

The original Indian Cinematograph Act of 1918 gives the right to the board to make
decisions based on what they conceive as the public opinion, making them the
interpreter of public opinion (GOI, 1928). The CBFC continues to interpret what
‘enlightened public opinion’ is, and have made numerous decisions based on that- like
with Udta Punjab in 2016, Deepa Mehta’s Fire in 1996, and Lipstick Under My
Burkha in 2016, where the film makers were under fire for showing themes which
were ‘too mature for the Indian Audience’. Themes like homosexuality, sex, drugs
have been censored for decades from the mainstream audience, and in the age of the
 11

internet, it is necessary for the CBFC to understand the common man better and not
make judgements on their behalf, By conducting a study of the public and gauging
their ‘level of maturity’, the board will be able to make better decisions with regards
to certification.

In the political economy theory, Florencia Enghel (2015) comments on the need for rigorous
and comprehensive inquiries to ensure proper understanding of the impact of the intervention
of development communication, which can be connected to the CBFC. Rather than making
decisions for the common citizens based on archaic laws, it is high time for them to conduct
studies to actually understand the audience, to see how cinema impacts them and then make
decisions accordingly.

It all boils down to the amendment of the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952, an action which
both houses of parliament have brushed aside for years. We have seen in the essay how the
concept of political economy extends beyond international development, affecting the
citizens of a nation, and their right to freedom of expression and speech. The role the
government plays indirectly in controlling the narrative of cinema has affected many
stakeholders, leading to moves in parliament to amend laws affecting them. The Indian
Cinematograph Law is just one such example of the power politics plays in media, and the
different situations where the justice system has had to intervene.

In the age of the internet where the regular joe has access to everything, censorship of
cinema is a curb on the freedom of expression. A proposal has yet again been drafted and
presented in August 2018 (Rauta, 2018), which is being supported by different politicians,
lawmakers, film makers and the audience, which will hopefully change the course od the
CBFC and ensure its apolitical functioning, allowing the audience to make their own
decisions, allowing important taboos to be discussed and questioned, thereby facilitating
change in society.
 12

REFERENCES

Anon, (2019). (online) Available at:

https://mib.gov.in/sites/default/files/Shyam_Benegal_committee_Report.pdf (Accessed on 2
January 2019)

Bhasin, R. (2016) ‘Udta Punjab not made to malign state: Bombay HC’ Indian Express, 10
June. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/udta-punjab-
not-made-to-malign-state-bombay-high-court-2844372/ (Accessed on 25 December 2018)

Bhatia, U. (2018) ‘100 years of film censorship in India’, liveMint, 14 July. Available at:
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/j8SzkGgRoXofpxn57F8nZP/100-years-of-film-
censorship-in-India.html (Accessed on : 15 December 2018)

Bhattacharya, D. (2016) ‘Unpacking the politics of Udta Punjab’, Huffington Post, 05 July.
Available at : https://www.huffingtonpost.in/debaditya-bhattacharya/udta-punjab-the-politics-
_b_10799154.html (Accessed on 20 December 2018)

Bhowmik, S. (2002) ‘Politics of film censorship: Limits of tolerance’, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 35, pp. 3574-3577

Biswas, S. (2014) ‘Why India loves to ban films’, BBC News, 21 August. Available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-28877947 (Accessed on 20 December 2018)

Cbfcindia.gov.in. (2019). Welcome to CBFC about us. [online] Available at:

https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/main/about-us.html (Accessed 20 December 2018).
 13

Dalal, S. (2009) ‘ Fundamental rights enshrined in Indian Constitution’, The Indian Journal
of Political Science, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp 779-786

Dubey, G. (2014) ‘ Bollywood Films that were banned due to political reasons’, Midday.com,
Available at: https://www.mid-day.com/articles/bollywood-films-that-were-banned-due-to-
political-reasons/15550150 (Accessed on 20 December 2018)

Enghel, F. (2015) ‘Towards a Political Economy of Communication in Development?’

Nordicom Review, 36:11-24

Government of India. (1928) Report of Indian Cinematograph Committee 1927-1928. India:

The Suprintendent Government Press Limited

Gupta, S. (2016) ‘Udta Punjab row: why Censor Board must stick only to certification’, The
Indian Express, 10 June. Available at : https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/udta-
punjab-right-cut-why-censor-board-must-stick-only-to-certification-2844195/ (Accessed on:
20 December 2018)

Mehta, T. (2016) ‘Proud to be a Modi Chamcha, says Censor board chief Pahlaj Nihaliani’,
NDTV, 8 June 2016. Available at: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/proud-to-be-modi-
chamcha-says-censor-chief-pahlaj-nihalani-1416873 (Accessed on: 20 December 2018)

Salian, P. (2016) ‘Udta Punjab: the film that challenged Indian censorship norms’, The
National- Arts and Culture, 19 October 2016. Available at: https://www.thenational.ae/arts-
culture/udta-punjab-the-film-that-challenged-indian-censorship-norms-1.179726 (Accessed
on 25 December 2018)

Maheshwari, L. (2015) ‘ India’s censorship board in disarray amid claims of political

interference’, The Guardian, 21 January. Available at :
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/21/india-censorship-board-crisis-leela-samson-
msg-messenger-of-god-political-interference (Accessed on : 10 December 2018)

Rajshekhar, M. (2016) ‘The controversy over ‘Udta Punjab’ shows how the state government
has completely lost the plot’, scroll.in, 08 June. Available at:
https://scroll.in/article/809532/the-controversy-over-udta-punjab-shows-how-the-state-
government-has-completely-lost-the-plot (Accessed on 10 December, 2018)
 14

Rauta, A. (2018) The cinematograph Amendment bill 2018- salient features, Available at:
http://iprmentlaw.com/2018/08/09/the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2018-salient-features/
(Accessed on: 22 December 2018)

The Kerala Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1988. Available at :

https://archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allrules/2367.pdf (Accessed on: 25 December 2018)

Udta Punjab (2016), Directed by Abhishek Chaubey. India: Balaji Motion Pictures White hill
studios.

Vidya. (2016), ‘Udta Punjab vs Censor Board: Anurag Kashyap moves Bombay high court,
gets response from CBFC’, India Today (8 June 2016). Available at :
https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/udta-punjab-censor-board-anurag-
kashyap-bombay-high-court-certificate-13018-2016-06-08 (Accessed on: 15 December 2018)