Umar Khalid Documentary Stopped: Where Does Film Censorship End and Free Expression Begin?

A fresh debate over film certification, campus autonomy and freedom of expression has emerged after the proposed screening of Prisoner No. 626710 is Present, a documentary about jailed activist Umar Khalid, was cancelled at the International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad (IIIT-H). The screening had been planned for September 18 by an informal student group.

The controversy began after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) objected to the proposed screening, stating that publicly exhibiting an uncertified documentary violates the Cinematograph Act unless a specific exemption has been obtained. The CBFC regulates public exhibition of films under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

IIIT-H subsequently cancelled the programme and said that neither the institute nor its recognised student organisations had authorised the screening. The institute also stated that no public or private screening of the film would be permitted in its classrooms, laboratories or offices.

However, the legal question has become broader: Does the CBFC's certification requirement apply in the same way to a closed campus screening for a limited audience? Lawyers cited by The News Minute have questioned this point, making the distinction between a public exhibition and a private or academic screening central to the debate.

The CBFC's own guidelines state that certification should not unduly curb artistic expression and creative freedom, while also allowing restrictions based on public order, security, defamation and other statutory grounds.

The controversy therefore raises a difficult question: When does lawful film regulation become a question of academic freedom and free expression? The answer ultimately depends on how the Cinematograph Act applies to this particular type of campus screening and how courts interpret its scope.