Satluj Film Controversy Zee5 Removal Cbfc Ott Rules

After being stuck for nearly three years over certification issues, the movie Satluj, based on the life of rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, premiered on ZEE5 on July 3. Just two days later, however, it was taken off the platform. While the film remains available internationally on ZEE5 global, it is unavailable in India “until further notice”.

Government sources have cited “security concerns“ over the film. An Inter-Departmental Committee, constituted by the government under the Information Technology Rules 2021, is set to take up the matter.

The takedown of a film that was never allowed a theatrical release has put the spotlight on the parallel regulatory regimes in India — the Cinematograph Act for theatrical releases and the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021 for streaming platforms. How do the two differ, and why does that matter?

The film chronicles the life and death of Khalra, the Amritsar-based activist, who investigated the alleged illegal cremation of “thousands of unidentified bodies” by police during Punjab’s militancy years. He was abducted and killed in 1995, a case in which several police officials were convicted.

The project, originally titled Ghallughara, changed its name to Punjab ’95 after the first round of scrutiny by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The CBFC sought 127 cuts before it would clear a theatrical release, which the makers refused.

Therefore, the film never reached the cinemas and eventually arrived on the over-the-top (OTT) platform — without the cuts — under the name Satluj. Parallelly, the makers challenged the CBFC’s objections before the Bombay High Court in 2023, but later withdrew the petition.

Theatre releases are governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Under Section 4 of the Act, any person wishing to exhibit a film publicly must apply to the CBFC, a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Screening uncertified films in a cinema is a criminal offence.

The CBFC certifies films into categories: U (unrestricted); UA (unrestricted with parental guidance); A (adults only), and S (restricted to specialised audiences).

The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023, further split the UA category into age-based sub-categories and made certificates perpetually valid, removing the earlier 10-year limit.

The Act also empowers the board to refuse certifications or to grant them subject to excisions and modifications if a film is against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order, decency or morality; or involves defamation or contempt of court. These are the “reasonable restrictions” on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Filmmakers have long criticised the wide discretion given to the examining and revising committee within the CBFC. Until 2021, a filmmaker, by a CBFC order in the form of a refusal or grant of a certificate or demands of cuts, could appeal to a dedicated tribunal under the act. A tribunal rationalisation reform abolished FCAT, transferring its functions to the High Courts, which is a slow and expensive process for time-sensitive releases. Critics also point out that the judges may lack the specialised engagement with cinema that a specialised tribunal would bring.

This is perhaps why the makers of Satluj withdrew the plea before the Bombay High Court and turned to streaming services where the CBFC has no jurisdiction.

OTT platforms typically operated with minimal oversight. But as their influence and reach grow, the government has made attempts to regulate these platforms.

In 2019, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the regulation of content on OTT platforms also under the Cinematograph Act. The HC reiterated the distinction between public exhibition of films, which is governed under the Cinematograph Act, to a private viewing of content on an OTT platform by individuals in the privacy of their personal spaces.

The government had also opposed the plea, arguing that the provisions of the IT Act take care of the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner.

OTT content is regulated under part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which prescribe a code of ethics requiring publishers to exercise caution over content that may fall under the grounds for “reasonable restrictions” mentioned above.

The rules set up a three-tier grievance structure — self-regulation by the publisher, self-regulatory bodies and government oversight through the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. This framework is also under challenge. The Bombay and Madras High Courts have stayed this provision.

In the 2023 Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, which was subsequently withdrawn, the government attempted to define OTT platforms as a broadcasting service to bring them under its ambit.

In the case of Satluj, however, the government has reportedly used its powers under Section 69A of the IT Act to take down the movie.

Section 69A involves the power to issue orders to block content. These orders are issued under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The government must record the reasons for blocking in writing, and then a designated Review Committee examines these directions and can set aside orders if they do not comply with Section 69A.

The Information & Broadcasting Ministry has formed a high-level Inter-Departmental Committee under Rule 14 of the IT Rules to examine Satluj’s content and make recommendations to the government.

The committee can recommend warnings, an apology or disclaimer, reclassification or modification of content, or deletion and blocking under Section 69A.