The Indian government issued an official clarification on social media stating that the foundational framework of film certification in India has remained largely consistent for over three decades, despite recent updates to the guidelines that were notified by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)

Addressing questions around the revised framework notified on September 16, 2026, the government highlighted via X (formerly Twitter) that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) guidelines continue to be anchored in the principles established in 1991.

“The #CBFC Certification Guidelines were issued in 1991, and film certification has continued to be governed by these Guidelines for the past 35 years,” the ministry stated in its post.

The government emphasized that only the following two substantive modifications have been introduced during this 35-year span:

1. i)Age-Based Classifications: The introduction of sub-categories under the UA certificate— UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+ — to provide better parental guidance.

1. ii)Mandatory Anti-Drug Warnings: The latest amendment, notified on September 16, which mandates on-screen anti-drug messages for scenes depicting substance use. The specific warning reads: ‘Illicit Narcotics Destroy Health and Guarantees Imprisonment. Say No to Drugs’.

“Except for these two changes, the core provisions and principles governing film certification have remained unchanged over the past 35 years,” the clarification added, urging filmmakers to review the full framework linked in the post, and hinting the film fraternity and critics should not jump to conclusions.

The government’s official clarification comes in the wake of renewed discussions and pushback from filmmakers and industry observers following the September 16 notification.

CBFC Chairman Shashi S. Vempati, while linking the government clarification on X to his comments, said, “Sets the record straight on how the Guiding Principles of Film Certification are largely the same since 1991.

“Far too many media reports have falsely reported on this aspect. It reflects poorly both on the quality of journalism and the editorial checks within the media houses. Ill-informed social media reactions ought not to be the basis for reporting without doing the necessary homework.”

Critics and a section of the film fraternity were of the opinion that revised guidelines would  lead to further censorship hampering creativity.

The notification explicitly formalized the on-screen statutory warning for narcotics, aligning theatrical films with recent advisories issued to streaming platforms and satellite broadcasters.

However, the broader publication of the revised guidelines reignited long-standing debates within the Indian film industry regarding government oversight, content regulation, and the role of the CBFC.

Critics and film bodies have periodically raised concerns that rigid mandates, intrusive on-screen warnings, and broad language regarding social values or public order limit creative freedom.

Many in the fraternity have advocated for implementing the recommendations of the 2016 Shyam Benegal Committee, which proposed that the CBFC operate purely as a certification body rather than a censor board.

By releasing the clarification on September 20, the government sought to assure stakeholders that the overarching rules are not a new overreach, but rather a continuation of the longstanding 1991 framework with targeted modern updates.