Special Report| New CBFC Board: Why the 18-Member Panel Carries Bigger Weight – And Why Better Film Certification Is Now Expected

Bhubaneswar: The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has entered a new phase with the Union government reconstituting the statutory film-certification body with an 18-member board, bringing together actors, filmmakers, producers, musicians, writers, critics and theatre professionals under chairperson Shashi Shekhar Vempati.

The change, announced on September 16, comes after the earlier board, constituted in 2017, continued beyond its original three-year term until successors were appointed. The new board has been given immediate effect for three years or until further orders, under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.

But the significance of the new CBFC is not merely that the government has replaced an old panel with a new one. The bigger question is whether the new board can convert the legal and technological reforms already introduced into a more consistent, professional and contemporary certification system.

Bigger board, broader responsibility

The new CBFC has 18 members, compared with the smaller panel that preceded it. More importantly, its composition cuts across several parts of India's cultural ecosystem.

The board includes actors Preity Zinta, Pankaj Tripathi, Suniel Shetty, Prosenjit Chatterjee, Manoj Joshi, Pallavi Joshi, Roopali Ganguly and Nishigandha Wad. Filmmakers and producers include Priyadarshan, Abhishek Jain, Neela Madhab Panda and Supriya Yarlagadda.

The creative spectrum is further widened by Grammy-winning composer Ricky Kej and singer Hansraj Hans, while film criticism, literature and theatre are represented by Vinod Anupam, Yatindra Mishra, Waman Kendre and Ramesh Patange. The complete official list has been published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

That composition matters because film certification increasingly involves questions that cannot be examined purely through a traditional censoring lens.

A film can simultaneously contain questions of artistic expression, social sensitivity, regional culture, language, technology, violence, sexuality, historical representation and children's exposure.

A board drawing expertise from different creative disciplines potentially gives examining processes a wider pool of professional perspectives.

The real weight: the 2024 certification framework

The most important difference, however, lies outside the personalities on the board.

The new members inherit a substantially updated certification framework. The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 replaced the 1983 rules and were designed to modernise certification for the digital era.

The government says the revised framework introduced online certification, priority screening mechanisms, reduced processing timelines, accessibility provisions and greater representation of women in the CBFC and its advisory panels.

That gives the new board a different institutional starting point.

Instead of operating primarily within an older procedural framework, the members are expected to implement rules specifically designed around a modern film industry.

The certification system also provides age-based categories, including the newer UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+ classifications, allowing content to be assessed through age suitability rather than treating every sensitive scene as a binary question of permission or prohibition.

This distinction is important for filmmakers because certification is legally different from censorship.

Government data released in March 2026 says CBFC modifications are to be recommended when content violates statutory parameters such as sovereignty and integrity, security of the State, public order, decency or morality, defamation, contempt of court or incitement to an offence.

A board inheriting a system already becoming faster

The new panel also does not begin with a blank slate.

The certification machinery has already moved substantially towards digitisation through the e-Cinepramaan system. According to government data presented in Parliament in February 2026, the stipulated certification timeline under Rule 37 is 48 working days, while the average processing time had fallen to 18 working days for feature films and three working days for short films.

That means one major expectation from the new board will be to ensure that institutional renewal does not disrupt the efficiency gains already achieved.

The numbers show the scale involved. CBFC certified 2,031 films in 2021-22, 2,777 in 2022-23, 2,837 in 2023-24 and 2,687 in 2024-25. In 2025-26, the figure had already reached 2,248 films at the time of the government's February 2026 response.

The board, therefore, is not overseeing a small cultural niche. It is sitting at the intersection of a high-volume commercial industry and a legally regulated public exhibition system.

Why expectations are higher this time

The new panel carries greater expectations for three reasons.

Earlier challenge	What the new board inherits	Expected institutional outcome
Long gap between formal board reconstitutions	Three-year tenure framework	Greater continuity and accountability
Rapidly changing film content	2024 certification rules	More contemporary interpretation
Multiple cinematic languages and cultures	Pan-Indian membership	Wider cultural perspective
Increasingly digital certification	e-Cinepramaan	Faster and more transparent processing
Sensitive age-related content	UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ categories	Greater emphasis on age suitability
Industry disputes over certification decisions	Multi-level grievance mechanism	More structured review

The board also inherits a system in which filmmakers have formal avenues to challenge certification decisions. Government data shows that decisions continue to be challenged before Revising Committees and, in some cases, High Courts.

The test begins now

The new CBFC's larger strength will ultimately be measured not by the celebrity quotient of its members but by how consistently it applies the rules.

The presence of prominent actors and filmmakers may bring valuable industry experience, but it also places a greater responsibility on the board to demonstrate institutional independence, consistency and transparency.

For Indian cinema, the central test will be straightforward: can the new board make certification predictable for filmmakers, understandable for audiences and firmly anchored in the statutory framework?

That is why the September 2026 reconstitution carries greater weight than a routine change of personnel.

India already has a new certification architecture. It now has a new board to operate it.

The outcome will depend on whether the 18-member panel can turn that structural reform into everyday certification practice.