I&B Ministry
No role in CBFC’s decision to put list of offensive words on hold: I&B
NEW DELHI: Even as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has put on hold the list of 28 “objectionable and abusive” words to be banned from Indian films, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry has denied any role in this.
A Ministry official told Indiantelevision.com that any decision in this regard may have been taken at the level of the Board or by its chairman Pahlaj Nihalani, who had issued the list, leading to protests from some members.
Interestingly, in reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha in this regard on 24 February, Minister of State for I&B Rajyavardhan Rathore had said, “CBFC under the Ministry certifies films for public screening in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 provides principles for guidance in certifying films. Guidelines for certification of films notified under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules lay down among other things that CBFC shall be guided by the following principles in this regard: (i) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity; and (ii) such dual meaning words as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed.”
Interestingly, the Minister refrained from making a comment on the list issued by Nihalani.
Meanwhile, it is learnt that Nihalani will be meeting Ministry officials in New Delhi in the next few days.
Earlier in a circular to the producers’ association and regional officers, the Board listed several “objectionable words” that are being used in films and directed its regional officers to ensure a ban on the list of cuss words. It also aimed to seek more conformity from directors and scriptwriters on cultural matters and political correctness. It also said ‘Mumbai’ should be used in place of ‘Bombay’ in films.
The list led to a Twitter war where some members said Nihalani had taken the decision unilaterally.
However, Nihalani told Indiantelevision.com that he was within his rights to issue the list as he was only following the powers given to him under the Cinematograph Act and was only referring to words that the Certification Guidelines do not allow.
It is learnt that during a several-hours-long meeting of CBFC in Mumbai earlier this week, several members of the board opposed the move to impose such a ban. It is understood that status quo would be maintained and the list will be put on hold, the source said.
The letter by Nihalani directed its regional officers not to issue certificates to films, which use these words, which are abuses in Hindi and English, and it has also been specified that double meaning words, violence against women and glorification of bloodshed should not be allowed.
I&B Ministry
IT Rules tweaks are clarificatory, not expansion of powers: MeitY
Govt signals flexibility as platforms push for clarity on user content rules
NEW DELHI: The Centre has sought to dial down concerns over its proposed amendments to the IT Rules, with Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology secretary S Krishnan asserting that the changes are intended as clarifications rather than an expansion of regulatory powers.
Pushing back against criticism from platforms and civil society, S Krishnan said the amendments “do not in any way actually give us wider powers” and are meant to remove ambiguity in how existing provisions are applied. He added that the trigger came largely from within the ecosystem, with intermediaries themselves seeking clearer guidance on compliance, takedowns and record preservation.
At the heart of the debate is the growing friction between platforms and policymakers over responsibility for user-generated content. Intermediaries have argued that they should not be treated on par with publishers, particularly when content is created and uploaded by users. Krishnan acknowledged this concern, noting that “a sharper distinction” between user content and publisher content is needed and is currently under examination.
The issue becomes more complex in enforcement scenarios. While registered publishers can be directly asked to modify or remove content, intermediaries often lack control over the original creator. “In such cases, the intermediary cannot direct those changes,” Krishnan explained, underlining the need for procedural nuance.
Another key proposal under discussion is to bring user-generated news and current affairs content within a more unified regulatory ambit, potentially under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The move follows suggestions that a single authority should handle such content, regardless of whether it originates from a publisher or an individual user.
Even as the government frames the amendments as a tidy-up exercise, fault lines remain. Industry players have flagged concerns over compliance burdens, especially for smaller businesses, and questioned whether advisories could effectively become binding without explicit legislative backing. Krishnan said the government is mindful of these risks and is exploring ways to ease obligations, including possible relaxations under certain provisions.
The ministry is also considering consolidating multiple advisories and guidelines into a more structured framework, a step widely seen as addressing long-standing confusion over what platforms are expected to follow.
On takedowns, the government has reiterated that due process will remain unchanged. Krishnan stressed that actions will continue to be governed by established procedures, with reasons recorded and review mechanisms in place. He also pointed to the surge in deepfakes and synthetic media as a factor behind rising content disputes, calling it a “scale challenge” for regulators.
Interestingly, Krishnan also framed social media platforms as commercial entities rather than pure vehicles of free expression, hinting at a broader shift in regulatory thinking as platform economics come into sharper focus.
With stakeholders seeking more time and, in some cases, a rollback of the proposals, the government has kept the consultation process open-ended. Krishnan said further revisions remain on the table, signalling a willingness to adapt the draft based on feedback.
For now, the message from MeitY is clear: the rules may not be tightening in intent, but the effort to define them more clearly is well underway.
