I&B Ministry
Surrogate TV ads set to go up in smoke after I&B order
NEW DELHI: No more fun times with Kingfisher. McDowell soda water will remain uncorked and Cavender’s adventure gear will have to take a backseat, as the government has finally cracked the whip leaving no scope for ambiguities.
In a circular, the information and broadcasting ministry has said brand extension advertising related to liquor and tobacco companies will not be allowed on TV in any form.
What is surprising is that while the electronic medium has been told to follow the government diktat, the print medium has been spared any such rigours leaving the option open for liquor companies to channelise their media spend heavily towards print products.
The government circular, issued today to the relevant section of the broadcast industry, clarifies that under the Cable TV (Network) Regulation Act 1995, liquor and tobacco advertising is not allowed on TV, which would also include from now on surrogate or brand extension advertising.
This also means that the TV channels would have to take a collective hit of between Rs 1300 to 1500 million in advertising revenue that was spent by liquor and tobacco companies annually in advertising brands not directly related to liquor or tobacco products.
When the government had first frowned on liquor
advertisements on TV channels in the mid-1990s, such companies had taken the surrogate advertising route, claiming it was part of brand extension.
So, you had Kingfisher soda water, Bacardi Blast music collections, 8 PM apple juice and even Wills rare moments photo collections, apart from a slew of other such products that were not readily available in the market.
The latest government circular also puts a question mark on media campaigns of yet-to-be-launched airlines services such as Kingfisher Airlines (promoted by liquor baron and MP Vijay Mallya) and the existing chain of casual wear from the ITC group, which is marketed under the Wills brand name.
Similarly, it also raises doubts over sponsorship of sporting events like Signature golf tournament and similar events that are also televised. TV companies were not immediately available for comment, but broadcast industry sources said this move may be challenged over why print has been spared the brand extension advertising ban.
I&B Ministry
CBFC speeds up film certification; average approval time cut to 22 days
Over 71,900 films cleared in five years as digital system shortens approval timelines
MUMBAI:Â The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has significantly reduced the time taken to certify films, with the average approval timeline now down to 22 working days for feature films and just three days for short films.
Operating under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the statutory body certifies films for public exhibition in line with the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. The rules prescribe a maximum certification period of 48 working days, though the adoption of the Online Certification System has sharply accelerated the process.
Over the past five years, from 2020-21 to 2024-25, the board certified a total of 71,963 films across formats. Of these, the majority fell under the U category with 41,817 titles, followed by UA with 28,268 films and A with 1,878 films. No films were certified under the S category during the period.
Film approvals have also steadily risen in recent years. The CBFC cleared 8,299 films in 2020-21, a figure that peaked at 18,070 in 2022-23 before settling at 15,444 films in 2024-25. During the same period, 11,064 films were certified with cuts or modifications.
Despite the high volume of certifications, outright refusals remain rare. Only three films were denied certification over the last five years, with one refusal recorded in 2022-23 and two in 2024-25.
The board may recommend cuts or modifications if a film violates statutory parameters relating to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, defamation, contempt of court or incitement to an offence.
Filmmakers can challenge CBFC decisions in court. Data shows that such disputes remain limited but have seen some fluctuation. Between 2021 and 2025, a total of 21 certification decisions were challenged before High Courts, with the number rising to 10 cases in 2025.
Responding to a question in the Rajya Sabha, minister of state for information and broadcasting L. Murugan shared the data. The question was raised by Mallikarjun Kharge.
With faster timelines and a largely digital workflow, the certification process appears to be moving at a far brisker pace, signalling a shift towards quicker clearances for India’s growing film output.
