Dissolution of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal in India


Film Industry in India is one of the biggest film industries in the world. The revenue generated from this industry is valued at 70 billion Indian Rupees, which was recorded in 2020 (1). Both digital and OTT platforms have contributed largely since the Lockdowns in the whole world affecting the traditional film experience. Film Fraternity is known for its creativity and the independent nature of their job, be it films or web series. But sometimes, there are certain blockages in the way of releasing a film, series and etc. The Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter referred to as CBFC) or popularly known as the Censor Board, at times restricts the release of the films, orders various cuts or the selective audience chosen because of its certification policies. However, film fraternity as of late had been given a ray of hope with the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as FCAT), functioning with its progressive standards, by being an institution for appeals by the film fraternity against the decisions of the CBFC.


FCAT in India had been setup under the Cinematograph Act, 1951 after the Amendment Act (37 of 1952) of 1981 which included Section 5D which instituted this appellate body, came to be in effect since 1983. Before the institution of this body, any disputes arising from the decision of the CBFC were challenged before the Central government which was taken up by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MoIB) which decided upon the restrictions and the certification of the content in question. The FCAT consists of a Chairperson who is assisted by four members, who are usually of Legal, Film background and a government representative along with a secretary who is appointed by the Government of India. FCAT has always been known to be progressive, so to balance the restrictive approach usually taken by the CBFC.


There have been some notable instances of CBFC and FCAT disputing on the edits or the release of the film or the series, and the FCAT stand has always preferred preventing the creation of the Film industry and the art. FCAT with their progressive approach have always tend to protect the integrity of the art and content from the decisions of CBFC.

One of the most controversial films in the Indian film industry was set to be going through a lot of cuts by the CBFC. The movie was ‘Bandit Queen’, but the FCAT reversed the order and stated understand the difference between nakedness, nudity, and obscenity” and hence the movie eventually got released without the inconvenient cuts ordered. A recent example is the large amounts of cuts ordered on the movie ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha’ before its release (3), when the FCAT granted an ‘A’ certificate after suggesting only a few minor edits. In 2016, a movie which starred Nawazuddin Siddiqui was also cleared for a U/A certificate release after CBFC ordered various cuts claiming it to be “very provocative”. FCAT also allowed the release of ‘Padmavat’ wherein the FCAT dismissed a petition to stop to the release of the film (4).


Recently, the Central Government of India introduced the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Condition of Service) Bill 2021, which has dissolved certain appellate bodies and including the FCAT too. Chapter IV of the amendment bill which specifically focuses on the Cinematography Act, includes Section 9 of the Tribunal Reforms Bill, 2021, which has rendered the dissolution of the FCAT by shifting the appellate jurisdiction under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 with the High Court, owing to the jurisdiction of the High Court. FCAT used to hear appeals under Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which now will be heard at the High Court. The provision according to the latest one presented in the Parliament in August, 2021 states that “for the word “Tribunal”, at both the places where it occurs, the words “High Court” shall be substituted;”. This has opened discussions and critiques on the aftermath of this decision and the consciousness that runs in the mind of creators while creating art and content due to excessive restrictions being imposed by the CBFC as of late.

It is unanticipated that Parliament has passed this bill of which a part has also been previously ordered to be struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2). As per the Section 3 of the Amendment Act, “…a person who has not completed the age of fifty years shall not be eligible for appointment as a Chairperson or Member…”, has been termed as discriminatory. The Apex court stated “is discriminatory because it is neither shown to have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e. appointing the most meritorious candidates; nor is it shown to be based on any empirical study or data that such older candidates fare better, or that younger candidates with more relevant experience would not be as good, as members of tribunals. It is plain and simple, discrimination based on age. The criterion (of minimum 50 years of age) is virtually “picked out from a hat”40 and wholly arbitrary.”


An appellate tribunal instituted for hearing appeals on decision by the CBFCs being shut and the powers of that body being shifted to the High Courts is not a good sign for the film fraternity at large. As feared by the leading experts in the Film industry, the removal of FCAT will enable the CBFC orders such as certification, stopping of releases and excessive cuts to remain firm as producers will have to approach the respective High Courts, where the pendency of cases remains of a high number and it is unlikely that the appeals will be heard and possibly ever resolved.

Pendency of Cases is a prominent issue in India, which has been eased by the establishments of Tribunals which are specified an area of law and have jurisdiction to hear matters. In a country where we fail to curb serious/heinous crimes like murder and rape, it is unlikely for the courts to allot a big share of time to hear pending cases of the Indian Film industry and disputes arising out of the Cinematograph Act. Hence, Tribunals have been a helping hand for the courts and more specifically in this area, the FCAT has posed to be the institution which hears matters on cases related to certification, censorship and other issues under the Act.

This delay caused due to approaching the High Court will only result in a restrictive approach from the producers in their film making and art in general because of the fear of finding themselves in a never-ending battle with the CBFC orders in the midst of the burden on High Courts.


It is clear that the dissolution of FCAT is problematic, not just from the point of view of the film industry, but also as a country where already the rate of pendency of cases is high. And the institutions which help resolve this pendency i.e., the tribunals are getting shut and their powers are getting transferred to Constitutional Courts. This proves to be a restrictive act upon the content creators in the Indian Film Industry who will from now, will have a more changed perspective on creating films, series and will be thinking twice before bringing up a sensitive issue which is purely subjective and hence will take away the freedom from the film fraternity.

The passing of this Bill is a danger sign for the film fraternity because of the effect it has on the Cinematography Act which regulated censorship and certification and shall affect the release of films and web series and content altogether because of a restrictive approach from the film industry from now on because of prospective legal implications. It is only hoped that the lawmakers decide upon a different body/institution altogether to hear appeals from CBFCs or a judicial body solely for the purpose of deciding certification of films and having an appellate authority or a tribunal as well to redress issues arising out of the Cinematograph Act. Hence, it is opined that it is important that the Bill relying solely rely on the High Courts will only result in the delaying in release of films because of burden on the Constitutional courts which will have adverse impact on the whole film industry.

Author:  Nishant Vimal, a 5 th year B.A. LLB. Student at Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad),  currently an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys.  In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010