Two Laws, One Film: How India Regulates a Movie Differently in a Theatre and on a Phone
The takedown of Satluj from ZEE5 exposes the constitutional gap between the Cinematograph Act's pre-censorship regime and the IT Rules' post-publication blocking powers
What happened
Article 19 questions reward candidates who can locate a controversy inside a statutory architecture rather than argue about it in the abstract. This episode gives you that architecture in miniature: two regimes, two moments of state intervention — one before publication, one after — and a live proposal to merge them. Read it as a case study in how the medium, not the content, currently determines the constitutional standard a film must meet.
Two Regimes, One Film
Theatrical vs Streaming Regulation
| Theatre | OTT | |
|---|---|---|
| Governing law | Cinematograph Act, 1952 | IT Rules, 2021 (Part III) |
| Regulator | CBFC (statutory board) | Self-regulation, 3 tiers |
| Timing of state action | Before release (prior restraint) | After release (Sec 69A blocking) |
| Can demand cuts? | Yes — 127 sought in this case | No — takedown only |
| Classification | U, UA 7+/13+/16+, A, S (2023) | U, UA 7+/13+/16+, A (2021) |
| Grounds | Sec 5B(1) — mirrors Art 19(2) | Sec 69A — mirrors Art 19(2) |
Source: Cinematograph Act, 1952; IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
Two parallel regimes govern film content in India. **Theatrical:** the Cinematograph Act, 1952 makes CBFC certification compulsory before public exhibition; Section 5B(1) limits refusal to grounds that mirror Article 19(2) — sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence.
●The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 added age-based sub-categories (UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+), made certificates perpetually valid instead of ten-year, and criminalised piracy. **Streaming:** OTT publishers are covered by Part III of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 — no pre-certification, only self-classification into U, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ and A, plus a three-tier grievance structure: Level I the publisher, Level II a self-regulatory body headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge, Level III an inter-departmental committee under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
●The state's lever is post-publication: Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, read with the Blocking Rules, 2009, permits blocking on Article 19(2)-type grounds.
●Shreya Singhal v.
●Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A but upheld Section 69A because it is procedurally safeguarded and narrowly tied to those grounds.
The medium, not the message, currently decides the standard — a film cut 127 times for a theatre needs no certificate at all to stream, but can be blocked overnight under Section 69A.
◎ In Simple Words
In India, a film shown in a cinema hall must first get a certificate from a government board, which can ask for cuts. But a film released on a streaming app does not need that certificate — the app is trusted to classify its own content, and the government can only order it taken down afterwards if it thinks the content is dangerous. So the same film can face very different rules depending on where you watch it. A recent film was pulled off a streaming app, and that has restarted the argument about whether both should follow one rule.
Factual Pointers
Practice · 2 questions
With reference to the regulation of streaming (OTT) content in India, consider the following statements:
1. OTT publishers of curated content must obtain prior certification from the Central Board of Film Certification before release.
2. Part III of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism whose apex tier is an inter-departmental committee.
3. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 allows the Central Government to block public access to information on specified grounds.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court:
Mains Practice Questions
"In India, the constitutional standard applied to a film depends on the screen it appears on, not on what it says." Critically examine the parallel regulatory regimes under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the IT Rules, 2021. (250 words, GS2)
Prior restraint on speech is constitutionally more suspect than subsequent punishment. In light of this proposition, evaluate the case for extending mandatory certification to online curated content. (250 words, GS2)
Discuss the adequacy of the procedural safeguards governing content-blocking under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, with reference to the proportionality standard. (150 words, GS2)
Frequently Asked
· People also askWhich law regulates OTT platforms in India?
Online curated content is regulated by Part III of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, framed under the IT Act, 2000. Publishers self-classify content into U, UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+ and A, and follow a three-tier grievance mechanism overseen by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
GS2 · GovernanceThere is no pre-certification requirement. Tier I is the publisher's own grievance officer, Tier II a self-regulatory body headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge, and Tier III an inter-departmental committee under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
SOURCE Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Does a film on a streaming platform need CBFC certification?
No. CBFC certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is compulsory only for public exhibition in theatres. The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea in 2019 seeking to bring OTT platforms under that Act, and streaming remains governed by the IT Rules, 2021 instead.
Prelims · GS2This gap is why a film offered 127 cuts by the CBFC in 2022 could be released online without them. The government is reported to be examining an amendment to the 2021 Rules that would make CBFC certification mandatory before OTT release.
SOURCE Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; ThePrint
What is Section 69A of the IT Act?
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of public access to online information on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or incitement to a cognisable offence.
GS2 · PolityIt is operationalised through the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The Supreme Court upheld it in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) because its grounds track Article 19(2) and its exercise carries procedural safeguards — unlike Section 66A, which was struck down.
SOURCE Information Technology Act, 2000; Supreme Court of India
Why was the film Satluj removed from ZEE5?
The government directed its removal in July 2026 citing security concerns and obligations under the IT Rules, 2021, with the blocking power under Section 69A of the IT Act invoked. The Centre also constituted a high-level inter-departmental committee to examine the film's content.
GS2The biographical drama, directed by Honey Trehan and starring Diljit Dosanjh, is based on rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who was abducted and killed in 1995 after investigating unidentified cremations in Punjab between 1984 and 1994.
SOURCE ThePrint, 7 July 2026
What did the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 change?
It introduced age-based sub-categories within the UA certificate — UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+ — made film certificates perpetually valid instead of expiring after ten years, and created penalties for unauthorised recording and exhibition of films to curb piracy.
PrelimsThe age-based categories aligned theatrical classification with the scheme already used by OTT platforms under the IT Rules, 2021 — a partial convergence of the two regimes on classification, though not on the question of pre-certification.
SOURCE Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
What happened to the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill?
The Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, which sought to create a unified framework covering broadcasting and digital media, was withdrawn. Its withdrawal left the convergence between theatrical and streaming regulation unlegislated, so the gap continues to be managed through executive action under existing law.
GS2 · GovernanceIn its absence, harmonisation is being pursued through possible amendments to the IT Rules, 2021 rather than fresh primary legislation — a distinction that matters, since rules face lighter parliamentary scrutiny than an Act.
SOURCE Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
What is prior restraint and why does it matter here?
Prior restraint means state approval is required before speech is published — as with CBFC certification. Subsequent restriction, such as blocking under Section 69A, acts after publication. Constitutional doctrine treats prior restraint as the graver interference with Article 19(1)(a), making the Indian split anomalous.
GS2 · PolityK.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) upheld film pre-censorship on the premise that cinema is a uniquely impactful medium for a captive mass audience — a premise weakened now that streaming reaches larger audiences without any gatekeeper.
SOURCE Supreme Court of India