ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC: Role of Central Board of Film Certification as a Regulatory Authority in

India

Submitted to:- Dr. Sushma Sharma

professor

Submitted by:- Hrishika Netam

2017B.A.LL.B53
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“We would like to express our immense respect and gratitude to all those who helped us in making this
project successful.

We are very grateful to our course teacher, Dr. Sushma Ma’am, humbly thankful to you for your
guidance and support during the project. We would find immense pleasure to thank our seniors for
their constant support and help during the making of this project.

And last but not the least we would thank wholeheartedly, our friends and parents for their constant
Encouragement and valuable inputs.

Thus, we are grateful to all of them.”

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE ROLE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION AS A REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
3. THE ROLE OF CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC) IN THE PRESENT
DEMOCRACY AND THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESION
5. WHAT IS CENSORSHIP?
6. FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA
7. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
8. ANALYSIS
9. CONCLUSION
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFRENCES
Introduction:- The essence of the paper lies in the exercise of determining whether the Central Board of
Film Certification (henceforth, CBFC) is compliant with all the principles of Administrative Law. CBFC, a
body created under the statute CinematographAct, 1952 is entrusted with the power to certify a film for
public access. It is mandated by law that any movie which is intended to be released to the public resident
in the jurisdiction of India must be cleared with a certificate by the CBFC. In the case of India, the CBFC
serves as a regulatory body for the certification of films before their publication. 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 of political economy ideology. For different purposes, the CBFC has
gradually used this power to direct film cuts, leading to it being widely referred to as the 'censor board'. The
CBFC has ignited controversy over the certification (or lack thereof) of films with subjects ranging from
feminism / women's empowerment and LGBTQ issues to the push for demonetisation by the Indian
government in recent months.
The growing probability that a film will not even be awarded public exhibition certification has led to
concerns that self-censorship will become the norm. In this Project, 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. And primarily focused on the working of the Censor Board, as it is
colloquially known, for the purpose of this project. The assessment was complemented by instances and
events from the short but eventful history of CBFC whereby it used the discretion vested in it. Special
attention has been paid to the current affairs of this board, with allegations of the incumbent Government’s
ideology creeping into the decision making of the censor board and thus, affecting its neutrality and
credibility.
THE ROLE CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION AS A REGULATORY
AUTHORITY

Cinema most particularly appears to have always grabbed the attention of millions of masses across the
globe. Projecting itself as one of the most pivotal sources of entertainment and information, the cinema not
only rejoices a very prime positioning in the public domain but also serves as a tool in impacting the minds
and hearts of people worldwide1. Projecting itself as one of the most pivotal sources of entertainment and
information, the cinema not only rejoices a very prime positioning in the public domain but also serves as a
tool in impacting the minds and hearts of people worldwide. The main concept under which the Central
Board of Film Certification refuses to grant certificates to films or suggests certain changes to the films
before they can be certified is Censorship. Censorship can be defined as the suppression of speech, public
communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful,
sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution etc. In India, censorship
involves issues of freedom of speech and expression which has been protected and guaranteed by the
Constitution of India2. However, given the history of regional, religious and communal diversity in India,
the freedom of speech and expression has certain reasonable restrictions upon it which in turn allow for
censorship.

The Role of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) In The Present Democracy And The
Challenges Ahead
Cinema most particularly appears to have always grabbed the attention of millions of masses across the
globe. Projecting itself as one of the most pivotal sources of entertainment and information, the cinema not
only rejoices a very prime positioning in the public domain but also serves as a tool in impacting the minds
and hearts of people worldwide. Different age groups be it the children, teenagers, matured individuals, or
the aged ones, cinema is cherished by almost everyone and is also identified as the mirror of the society.
Cinema secures a crucial stand in the societal perspective as it is considered to be one of the most
significant portrayals of ideas, belief, culture, perceptions, norms etc by way of providing amusement to
everyone. This portrayal if lacks appropriate supervision and not brought forthin a responsible manner,
would hamper the peace, order and discipline of the society. Therefore, associating ourselves with the
above factor, we can deduce that censorship and certification of films would play a major role in this
context.3
India is the largest film industry in the world producing more than 900 feature films as well as great amount
of short films every year. Theatres witness audiences as huge as the country’s population every two
1
http://theatreworld.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Film_censorship.pdf
2
http://www.shareyouressays.com/116176/essay-on-the-film-censorship-in-india. Article shared by Pragati Ghosh
3
https://www.amicusx.com/post/central-board-of-film-certification-the-law-and-the-controversy
months. Films involve a vast amount of investment as lakhs of people make a living out of it. 4 Due to the
competition increasing globally coupled with the urge to sustain in the longer run, the film- makers try to
put their best effort to ensure that the product they endeavor to bring forward is sufficient to earn them their
returns. In this process, they sometimes due to over- excitement and zeal induced in them end up producing
films which might be appealing and liked by a certain group or even result in strong opposition and revolt
by some as a consequence of dissatisfaction or contradiction of views

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right guaranteed to all the citizens residing within the
territory of India under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution. It gives the ability to each and every citizen to
take a step forward and voice their opinion from every nook and corner of the country. This right enables
the people to think and also gives them the privilege of making their views and ideologies acknowledged
by everyone in the society. Thus, encouraging different propositions to be heard which motivates in
boosting the growth and development of the country.

The press and cinema also come within the purview of Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(2) of the constitution
imposes reasonable restrictions on this right. These restrictions are incorporated within the ambit of this
article in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.5
When we talk about the right to freedom of speech and expression, we can say that the various aspects of
media including the print as well as the electronic especially in this era are playing the role of key
contenders, in keeping the people informed and updated about everything happening around them. It is
essential for the media to take into account the repercussions that might take place in the country, whether
it is writing an article in the newspaper, giving a speech in the public sphere or screening of a movie in a
theatre.

It is to be noted that the importance of media cannot be denied today as it undoubtedly assists each
individual to develop a strong understanding related to various issues taking place in the country including
education, poverty, crime, growth and development, health and sanitation, politics etc. But while utilizing
this right guaranteed by the constitution one should bear in mind that this right is not taken for granted and
in order to confirm the same the constitution has set certain restrictions as mentioned above.6
4
http://thelawdictionary.org/censorship
5
https://theconsiglieres.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/free-speech-and-film-censorship
6
https://mib.gov.in/film/central-board-film-certification
What is Censorship?
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary censorship is defined as the restrictions on publications and the
presentation of books, plays, films, etc to the public.7

Significance of Film Censorship

When the media exercises the right allotted to them under Article 19(1)(a), it becomes extremely crucial to
scrutinize and review the product before it reaches the public. The masses greatly seem to get influenced
and carried away by the combination of both the effects including audio and visual in comparison to the
printed word.

The process of film censorship or certification is the last stage in examining a film and it contains a
decision whether a particular film should be permitted for the viewing of the spectators, or it should be
allowed for the viewing but with alterations and eliminations. It is necessary to confirm that the citizens are
not exposed to content which might disturb their mental peace and stability and leave them traumatized.

Film Censorship in India

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a legal censorship and categorization body established
under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. The board has been allocated
the authority of controlling the public presentation of films as per the provisions of the Cinematograph Act
1952.

The Cinematograph Act 1952 (Act 37 of 1952) does not only include the various provisions regarding the
process of functioning and framework of the Central Board of Film Certification ( earlier referred to as the
‘Central Board of Film Censors’) but also lays down various directions to be followed by certifying films.
During the initial phase it constituted only two kinds of certificates U-( Unrestricted public exhibition ) and
A( Restricted to adult audiences), but in the year 1983 in the month of June two other categories were
included - UA( Unrestricted public exhibition subject to parental guidance for children below the age of
twelve) and S( restricted to specialized audiences such as doctors).8

The current censorship of films is governed by the 1952 Act, the Cinematograph Certificate Rules
broadcasted in the year 1983 accompanied with the instructions given on a timely basis, the last issued in

7
https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/
8
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2490/The-Role-of-Central-Board-of-Film-Certification.html
the year 1991 on 6th December. The directions are issued under Section 5B of the act which says“a film
shall not be certified for public exhibition, if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the
certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the States, friendly relations with foreign State, public order, decency or morality or involves
defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.”9

Till June 1 1983 recognized as the Central Board of Film Censors, initially was formed in Mumbai and had
its regional offices at Mumbai, Chennai as well as Kolkata. Currently there are nine such offices based in
Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram, Delhi, Cuttack and Guwahati.

Under the scope of section 5D of the 1952 Act, a Film Certification Appellate Tribunal has been
established for the purpose of hearing appeals against any order passed by the CBFC. This tribunal is
situated in New Delhi.

It is the centre who is vested with the duty of investigating the matters relating to the certification of films
while the state has the authority to execute the penal provisions against the offenders if they come across
any sort of contravention of sections within the scope of the act.

The CBFC divides itself into the Examining and Revising Committees to grant a two- tier system of jury
for the purpose of certification of films. If at all there is any sort of conflict of judgment in the Examining
Committee or relating to the applicant not being satiated in regard to the order of the examining committee,
the chairperson is empowered to inform the revising committee for a reference of the film.10

The certification rules are also applicable to the foreign films which get imported into India, including the
movies which are dubbed as well as video films. The CBFC does not enjoy any censorship rights in the
matters relating to dubbed films. The certification is also inapplicable to the movies particularly made for
doordarshan. An exemption is granted to the doordarshan programmes from the provisions of censorship
and doodarshan has its own procedure and technique for analyzing the film.

The CBFC has to ensure that any movie before it is screened has showed compliance to the following
requisites:
1. The medium of the film remains answerable and sensitive to the societal morals and standards.

9
https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/types-of-film-certificates-by-the-censor-board-in-india-
10
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Central-Board-of-Film-Certification
2. Artistic expression and the liberty of creativity are not excessively restrained.
3. Certification is responsive to social changes.
4. The movie provides clean and healthy entertainment.
5. The film is of aesthetic value and of good standards.

When all the mentioned conditions are complied with as per the Cinematograph Act 1952, only then the
board would certify the film and grant grades as it deems fit.[3] The Cinematograph(Certification) rules
1983 explains the procedure that has to be compulsorily followed by a producer in order to get his film or
video film certified ,along with clearly mentioning the steps he has to follow, the fees which has to be paid
and other materials which has to be submitted by him11.

The Shyam Bengal Committee was formulated on January 1 in the year 2016 to lay down certain rules and
instructions for film certification that would take into cognizance the best practices all over the world and
alsoto advise different practices which would provide a helping hand to the CBFC in the process of
certification.Some of the recommendations of this committee are as follows. But however only some
progress has been seen in this regard.

1.The CBFC should only carry out its functions pertaining to the certification of films and its authority
should be restrained when it comes to categorizing of the movies to the audience on the grounds of age and
maturity.
2. The board should be sanctioned with the power to deny certification to any particular film if it is in
contravention of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act.
2. The applicant applying for receiving the certificate must mandatory specify the category of certificate
being sought and the target audience.

According to the Supreme Court of India “Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates
thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word.
The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi darkness of the theatre with elimination of all
distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore,
it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instill or cultivate violent or
bad behavior. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is,
therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.”

Judicial pronouncements
11
https://www.ibfindia.com/central-board-film-certification-cbfc
The history of CBFC is rife with several instances of people crying foul about the way it was functioning. From
the days of Satyam Shivam Sundaram12, where the CBFC’s certification’s effect was contemplated by the
Supreme Court to the most recent Udta Punjab controversy decided in the case of Phantom Films v. CBFC in the
Bombay High Court, there have been several examples where the Judiciary had to involve itself in rectifying the
flawed functioning of this administrative body.

Subsequent to the decision in the Udta Punjab 13case, several newspaper reports emerged which stated that the
judiciary has interfered to declare that the CBFC can only certify films and not cut and censor them. It is
submitted hereby that this is a complete misconception and thus, the newspapers spread incorrect news across
India. A plain reading of the text of the aforementioned judgment clarifies that the case does not take away the
censoring powers of the CBFC, which is granted by a parliamentary statute- Section 4 of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952. 14It is further pointed out that it is out of the scope of the Court’s power to make any new laws and it
can only strike down laws under part III of the Indian Constitution. The functioning of the CBFC has been
justified by the Apex Court itself in a string of cases as being covered by Article 19(2) of the Constitutional
document. 

The actual decision in the Udta Punjab controversy does not take away the powers of the “Censor Board”, but is
a more narrow decision, only applying that particular case. The facts of the case merited a reference to the
landmark precedent of Ramesh Dalal v. Union of India, a case revolving around the show Tamas, starring Om
Puri, which dealt with certain controversial issues such as partition of the Indian sub-continent and the hatred
surrounding it. The decision in that case asked the CBFC to look at the overall effect of the movie, which was to
show such hatred in a bad light and in turn, send a message of peace. The CBFC was asked not to get triggered
by isolated scenes or elements, but look at the overall effect of the sum of such elements.15

Applying the same idea in the context of the Udta Punjab movie, the Bombay High Court decided to focus on
the overall effect of depiction of anti-social elements instead of looking at them in isolation. Thereby, The
Bombay Court came to the conclusion that the censor report be rendered ineffective because of the positive
message of the movie. With respect to the foul language used in the movie, the Court maintained that since the
audience of the movie are mature, given the Adult certificate it received, it is not necessary to mute the explicit
language16.

12
 Raj Kapoor v. Laxman, AIR 1980 SC 605
13
2016 (4) ABR 593
14
EWD, Udta Punjab row: CBFC does not have power to censor films, says Bombay High Court, Indian Express,
15
Ibid.
16
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/udta-punjab-row-bombay-high-court-cbfc-pahlaj-nihalani-anurag-kashyap-
2850083/
ANALYSIS

Several liberal activists have found a perpetual antagonist in the form of CBFC, with each of its moves being
exhaustively frisked, rightly so in the researcher’s opinion. Apart from the tenets of free speech and expression
getting undermined by the actions of the Censor Board, it has also been involved in discouraging feminist values
such as sexual liberation and women empowerment from taking the fore through the medium of cinema. 17While
the movie Angry Indian Goddesses is the most recent case in point, this has been an age old practice in India,
especially when the Hindu Right was in power. The most popular instance of such moral policing is with regard
to a song “Chholi ke Peeche” from the movie Khalnayak (1993), a movie during whose release, the party
workers of BJP and other adherents to the Hindu right wreaked havoc in protest18. So was done for the
“ghoomar” song n “padmawat” and the movie “Parched” which s a latest movie exploring women sexuality
but wasn’t cleared by CBFC for public and s available only on youtube or on pirated websites. 19

In light of such events regularly taking place in India, one is forced to question the policy of the ruling
government and speculate the possibility of partisan motivations plaguing such administrative bodies and thus,
obstructing impartial delivery of justice. The Principles of Natural Justice require any body carrying on judicial
or quasi-judicial functions to be free from bias and give the accused an opportunity to be heard. It appears,
Prima Facie, that the way CBFC is conducting itself in its functioning, the Principles are being contravened.
Thus, it requires a deeper analysis to determine whether such activity merits some correction and whether the
working of CBFC per se is problematic.20

As already mentioned, there are two major principles recognised as epitomising natural justice, one being the
duty of the judge to remain unbiased and the other that the parties to the dispute be given a chance for presenting
their grievances.

The statute governing the actions of CBFC, the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a well crafted one insofar as the
principle of Audi Alteram Partem is concerned. Various sections of the Act have explicit provisions mandating
presenting the opportunity to be heard by the party seeking certification from the board.

While earlier there was an important distinction between Judicial and administrative functions of an
administrative body relevant for application of the Principles of Natural Justice, subsequent to the case of A.K.
Kraipak v. Union of India 21the aforementioned distinction has been done away with, making the principles of

17
Supra note 4.
18
Monika Mehta, “What Is Behind Film Censorship? The Khalnayak Debates.” Gender &
Censorship, Women Unlimited, 170-187 (2006)
19
http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/angry-indian-goddesses-invokes-the-wrath-of-angry-indian-cbfc/story-
b8N39zN70RhPrh8uC1lxmM.html
20
Ibid.
21
 AIR 1970 SC 150.
Natural Justice applicable to the functioning of the administrative bodies, irrespective of what the nature of such
function is, by the virtue of such bodies being public authorities and thus, owing a duty to the people of India at
large. 

It is observed hereunder that all the sections of the CBFC statute, wherever they affected the certificate applicant,
contained provisions for providing the applicant with a fair opportunity to present his case and thus, be heard.
Thus, one can safely conclude that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem is being followed by CBFC in its
administrative functions, at least insofar as it has been mandated by the statute.22

The following segment will examine whether CBFC is also adherent to the principle of Nemo Judex Causa Sua
(No Judge can decide a matter which is in self-interest), an inherent tenet of natural justice.

It needs to be noted that there are multiple considerations which need to be fulfilled in order to satisfy this tenet.
This tenet aims to prevent bias of the human agent from disrupting the process of justice and thus, ensures
fairness in decision making. The major concern behind this principle is that justice must not only be done, but
also be seen to be done, as it is the only way the system gains legitimacy from its subjects and the people will be
willing to invest confidence in the procedure of law.

An Indian case in point being G. Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh23, here, the contention was as to the
impartiality of the authority in charge when that authority had earlier made statements which were allegedly in
favour of one interest over the other involved in the decision making. While the Court held that the authority in
question is not biased insofar as the principles are concerned and thus, is not disqualified under the Nemo Judex
Causa Sua principle. 

In order to establish that the CBFC was disqualified under the Principles of Natural Justice, it needs to be proved
that BJP has a particular policy which makes it predetermine certain issues and thus, is biased towards a
particular ideology. Secondly, it must be established that even the CBFC or its members have been biased in
their decision making and have also influenced the perception of their image as biased judges in the mind of the
common public.

A more pertinent example would be of the movie War and Peace (2002) which included certain scenes including
Gandhi’s assassination24. This movie faced the wrath of the Censor Board during the rule of BJP and the Censor
Board advised that such scenes be deleted. The CBFC had 2 out of the four members in the committee judging
this movie belong to the BJP party in some capacity. The scenes which depicted facts such as RSS, a BJP aided
entity, being directly involved in Gandhi’s assassination were asked to be cut by the CBFC panel and several

22
Ibid
23
AIR 1959 SC 308.
24
Ibid.
To revise the holding in the Nageswara Rao case, it held that if a bias forces an administrator to predetermine
something, then such bias is inconsistent with the Principles, thereby it cannot influence any further
proceedings. Moreover, it can also be interpreted to say that if the policy framer and the body functioning on the
basis of such policy are constructively the same entities, then such a practice is biased and cannot be used to
make a decision. The only exception to the application of the principles of natural justice is the doctrine of
necessity, but it is argued that it is not applicable here, as the board comprises of several members and it is
always possible to constitute a panel with neutral members of the board. More importantly, issues of great
significance like fundamental rights, which are in the same bracket as prevention of corruption, do not merit
application of this doctrine.

To summarise this strand of the argument, it is submitted that the CBFC comprises of partisan members who
have a predetermined agenda, which is in contravention of the Principles. The constant intervention of the
Judiciary in order to correct the CBFC’s actions is not a desirable practice, as it requires a lot of additional time
and money, thereby denying the right to justice that people of this nation have.

Even if the intentions of the administrative bodies are not accurately determined, the presumption should favour
the general populace, inasmuch as it avoids putting their interests at the risk of being adjudicated upon in a
biased process. Thereby, ensuring that justice is not only done, but also is seen to be done.25

The next strand of the argument examines the nature of the policy that the CBFC follows. While policy bias is
covered by the principles of natural justice in general ambit, In Arguendo, if the CBFC claims that it is a matter
of policy that it has to act in a particular manner, it is submitted that such policy cannot overwhelm the
considerations which arise on a case to case basis.

The precedents already have paved the way for such an evaluation with the Tamas and Udta Punjab cases
advocating the understanding of a movie’s impact as a whole rather than just judging unitary elements of the
movie. Moreover, since the CBFC is a State body, it has to ensure welfare of all the citizens of India, a section of
which is the women, whose freedom and liberty have been undermined by years of systematic oppression.

This leads to the next strand of argumentation in the paper. CBFC is a statutory body which carries on State
functions and thereby, has an inherent duty to the general public, which also involves women.26

One set of leading principles of Administrative law which applies in this case is that of Improper Purpose and
Irrelevant Considerations. This doctrine nullifies any administrative action which had an undue purpose or acted
in response to irrelevant considerations. Failure to take relevant considerations into account is also considered an
error in administration.

25
http://www.worldpress.org
26
 Supra note 49.
These two major principles usually come into the equation when the statute allows for discretion to the
administrative body, either by virtue of explicit mention or implied understanding. To check the potentially
unlimited discretion, the administrative law has evolved these doctrines and thereby, prevents large scale abuse
of power by the executive.27

It is submitted that the CBFC has failed to take into account certain relevant considerations and thus, its
administrative actions do not merit any recognition by law. By not curbing the freedom of expression of the
women, it has acted without paying attention to the requirement of their upliftment, which absolutely a value the
State is to strive for.

So, in conclusion, the researcher asserts that CBFC is an administrative body which needs to comply with all the
principles of administrative law. While there are still some critics of the use of principles of natural justice to
disqualify people on the basis of the policy bias, it needs to be clarified that in order to preserve the confidence
of the Hoi Polloi, principles of natural justice need to be adhered to. But, on a closer examination, it appears that
the doctrine of relevant considerations is an extension of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, because giving a
hearing to a party is always a relevant consideration to be taken into account, failing which any administrative
action becomes nullified. 28

Similarly, the doctrine of Improper Purpose covers the other principle of the natural justice- Nemo Judex Causa
Sua in an extended form, because bias cannot be a ground for deciding a matter in a particular way. When an
administrative body decides an issue based on its predisposition towards a party involved, it means that it did not
decide the case on its merits and definitely not the way in which a statute prescribes, thereby satisfying the
standards fixed by the principles of improper purpose. 

Thereby, if there are restrictions on the application of Principles of natural justice, they can be extended in the
form of the doctrines of relevant considerations and improper purpose, which do not have as many restrictions
and are universally applicable to all administrative bodies and their actions, irrespective of the kind of bias
alleged.

27
Ibid
28
Supra note 4.
CONCLUSION

The researcher is satisfied with the execution of the objectives identified at the out set of the paper. Apart from
providing an insight in to the working of the CBFC and summarising the position of administrative law on
certain subjects relevant to the scenario, the analysis section contain edapertinent critique of the CBFC and its
current day functioning.
It was argued that CBFC is indirect violation of a Principle of Natural Justice, that is Nemo Judex Causa Sua
and thereby, It needs to be corrected. The solution proposed was that CBFC be careful in not letting the political
inclinations of its human agency affect its decision making, especially so because significant issues such as the
Freedoms of Indian citizens is involved. Then, ananalys is of the CBFC’s policy and the considerations
involved culminated in postulating that Improper Purpose and Irrelevant Considerations are, in practice,
extensions of the Principles of Natural justice, albeit with lesser restrictions. Thereby, a case was made for
applying the above two doctrines to identify procedural errors instead of banking on Principles of Natural
Justice, which have several restrictions like necessity and policy bias.
The solution above is only to engage the criticism received by Natural Justice Principles, the researcher
however opines that Principles of Natural Justice, especially in the context of a developing country like India,
be applied more freely. The effect of such liberal approach ensures that the public builds and invest sits
confidence in the system, thus, reinforcing the legitimacy essential for the functioning of the Government.
To sum up ,the paper is believed to be very relevant to the current times, given the palpable apathy being shown
by the government towards the minorities of this Country. Administrative bodies such as the CBFC have
become the hand maidens of the Government aiding it in administration and becoming its vehicle of propaganda
and operation.The very rudiment of power distribution and limitation, in this process are being forgotten
about.In order to ensure the safeguard of the welfare of the public, stringent compliance with various tenet so
flaw is required and all the bodies need to act to check the powerful Government at the Centre, in order to
maintain the democratic scheme of India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCES
WEBSITE
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2490/The-Role-of-Central-Board-of-Film-Certification.html
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Central-Board-of-Film-Certification
 https://mib.gov.in/film/central-board-film-certification
 https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/types-of-film-certificates-by-the-censor-board-in-india-
 Ibid
 Supra notes
 http://www.worldpress.org
 Monika Mehta, “What Is Behind Film Censorship? The Khalnayak Debates.” Gender &
Censorship, Women Unlimited, 170-187 (2006)
 http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/angry-indian-goddesses-invokes-the-wrath-of-angry-indian-
cbfc/story-b8N39zN70RhPrh8uC1lxmM.html
 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/udta-punjab-row-bombay-high-court-cbfc-
pahlaj-nihalani-anurag-kashyap-2850083/
 EWD, Udta Punjab row: CBFC does not have power to censor films, says Bombay High Court, Indian
Express,
 https://www.ibfindia.com/central-board-film-certification-cbfc