Examine the balance between artistic freedom and statutory certification requirements in India, with reference to CBFC's mandate.

Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 permits refusal of certification only on grounds that mirror Article 19(2) [1]. The CBFC's mandate is thus certification, not censorship — the balance turns on how narrowly that statutory discretion is exercised.

Where the statutory framework supports artistic freedom

• Constitutional anchoring: the 5B(1) grounds — sovereignty and integrity, security, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement — track Article 19(2), so the restriction is reasonable rather than open-ended [1].
• Facilitation at scale: nearly 72,000 films were certified in five years, with cuts recommended only where these statutory parameters are breached [2].
• Procedural fairness: average certification time is down to 18 working days against a prescribed 48, through the online e-Cinepramaan system [3]; 50% women's participation is ensured in every Examining and Revising Committee [4].
• Classification over prohibition: the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 split the single UA certificate into UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+, widening audience choice instead of denying release [5].

Where the balance strains

• The power to suggest modifications survives, though the Shyam Benegal Committee (2016) urged that CBFC function purely as a classifying body, leaving cuts to the filmmaker's chosen category [6].
• Institutional insecurity: under Rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, members hold office "during the pleasure of the Central Government" for up to three years [7] — adjudicators of free speech without protected tenure.
• With the Centre's revisional power removed in 2023, Board decisions are administratively final, leaving costly litigation as the sole remedy [5].
• The new age endorsements only guide parents and bind no one [5] — finer labels without gatekeeping at the theatre.

The balance today is largely procedural — faster, more representative, statutorily bounded — rather than structural. Embedding Benegal's classification-only role and a fixed-term, reasoned-removal safeguard in the 2024 Rules would let CBFC serve Article 19(2) without diluting Article 19(1)(a), securing both creative liberty and public interest.