Film on Punjab activist taken down from OTT: How India's dual censorship regimes work

Two days after its release on ZEE5, the film 'Satluj'—based on the life of rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra—was removed from the platform in India. Government sources cited 'security concerns', and an Inter-Departmental Committee under the Information Technology Rules 2021 will examine the matter. The film remains available on ZEE5 Global outside India.

The takedown highlights India's parallel regulatory systems: the Cinematograph Act for theatrical releases, and the IT Rules for streaming platforms. Understanding these regimes is key to grasping the film's journey.

'Satluj' chronicles Khalra's investigation into alleged illegal cremations of unidentified bodies during Punjab's militancy era, and his subsequent abduction and murder in 1995. Initially titled 'Ghallughara' and later 'Punjab '95', the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demanded 127 cuts before certification. The makers refused, so the film never reached theatres. It was eventually released on OTT as 'Satluj' without the cuts. A parallel legal challenge in the Bombay High Court was later withdrawn.

The CBFC, established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, certifies films for theatrical exhibition into categories: U, UA (split into age-based sub-categories after 2023 amendment), A, and S. Section 4 makes screening an uncertified film a criminal offence. The board can refuse certification or demand cuts if the film threatens sovereignty, security, public order, decency, or morality—reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Filmmakers have criticized the CBFC's wide discretion, and the abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 forced appeals to High Courts, a slower and costlier process.

OTT platforms, until recently, operated with minimal oversight. However, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 brought them under a code of ethics administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The rules require platforms to classify content into age ratings and establish a grievance redressal mechanism. A three-tier structure includes self-regulation by the platform, a self-regulating body of industry, and an oversight mechanism by the government—the Inter-Departmental Committee. This committee can take action if content violates the code, including blocking access. Unlike CBFC, there is no pre-certification; platforms are expected to self-regulate.

Critics argue that parallel regimes create confusion and potential for overreach. While theatrical releases face rigorous pre-censorship, OTT content is subject to post-release scrutiny. The case of 'Satluj' illustrates how filmmakers may bypass CBFC by choosing OTT, only to face a different set of regulatory challenges. The government maintains that both systems are designed to uphold constitutional values while ensuring content does not endanger security or public order.

As the Inter-Departmental Committee reviews 'Satluj', the debate over India's dual censorship frameworks continues. The balance between creative freedom and state regulation remains a contentious issue in the digital age.