Sahiya Director Sanjay Sharma Warns CBFC of High Court Battle Over Film Certification

Journalist-turned-filmmaker and producer Sanjay Sharma has launched a strong attack on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over the prolonged delay and rejection of his film Sahiya, saying he is prepared to approach the High Court if the Board does not change what he describes as its attitude towards small-budget films. Sharma also made it clear that his background in journalism should not become a reason to dismiss the hard work of an entire filmmaking team.

Speaking at a press conference in Mumbai, Sharma addressed his ongoing tussle with the CBFC and questioned the way his film has been treated during the certification process. Sahiya, starring Shantanu Maheshwari, Rinku Rajguru and Neeraj Kabi, is a human love story set against the backdrop of conflict between the police and Naxalism. The filmmaker has repeatedly maintained that the film does not promote Naxalism or violence and instead tells the story of ordinary tribal people caught between opposing forces.

When Sharma was asked why he believed he was being harassed and whether other filmmakers had faced similar problems, he said he had personally spoken to several people who claimed their films had been stuck with the Board for months without adequate explanations. “I have met many people who told me their films were held up for five or six months; they kept making the rounds, yet were given no explanation about what was happening,” Sharma said.

He then raised a more personal concern, suggesting that his association with the news organisation 4 PM could possibly have contributed to the treatment he received. Sharma said, “I suspect that the name ‘4 PM’ might be the reason behind my harassment—perhaps some people object to the name. I have faced harassment for various reasons in the past—I even went to the Supreme Court and the High Court in Maharashtra during my journalism career—but I never imagined I would be targeted in Bollywood simply because of ‘4 PM’.”

However, Sharma stressed that even if anyone had an issue with him or his journalistic background, he could not understand why that should affect a film involving the work of an entire team. “You might have an issue with me or with ‘4 PM’, but why hold up a film that represents the blood, sweat, and hard work of 100 to 200 people? What is the thinking behind that?” he questioned.

The filmmaker said he is already preparing for the possibility of legal action. “I am certainly preparing to go to court; I am waiting until tomorrow—when the five-day period concludes—hoping the Censor Board might grant approval. If they don’t, we will have no choice but to approach the High Court and demand an investigation into the entire matter,” Sharma said.

His concerns, however, are not restricted to the eventual certification decision. Sharma said he has been using the Right to Information process to seek answers about the way his film was handled. “I am raising questions via RTI: Why wasn’t the film viewed for 51 days? Why aren’t people informed about which board members are watching the film? What is the fear regarding depositing phones outside? What exactly do the six board members need to discuss with the producer?” he asked.

The issue of mobile phones has become one of Sharma's most repeated objections to the process. According to the filmmaker, he was asked to leave his phone outside before the screening, something he finds difficult to understand when the discussion concerns his own film and his professional work. He questioned whether the secrecy surrounding the process is justified.

“What confidential matters are being discussed behind closed doors that require phones to be left outside? There is something fishy going on, isn’t there? What are you afraid of? If you have nothing to fear, say it openly. Sit across from us, turn on the camera, and point out exactly what is wrong with the film—what is objectionable,” Sharma said.

He went further, arguing that producers and directors should have the right to have objections properly documented. “The producer should be given an answer; it should be on record. What kind of ‘deal’ are you trying to strike in a closed room after confiscating phones? This system needs to be abolished. The producer should be given a proper, recorded explanation.”

For Sharma, transparency is the central issue. He is not merely asking the CBFC to approve Sahiya; he wants the Board to clearly explain why it believes the film violates certification guidelines. “When the Censor Board team points out a shortcoming, it should be recorded. The producer and director should have the right to record that interaction,” he said.

His strongest criticism came as he questioned the very rule that requires filmmakers to leave their phones outside during such interactions. “What kind of rule is this—that you have to leave your phone outside? What sort of shady business are you trying to conduct behind closed doors here?” Sharma asked.

The filmmaker also clarified that the delay was not a result of his waiting before approaching the Review Committee. When asked why he had waited so long despite the film being supposed to be viewed within five days, Sharma responded that he acted immediately once the film was rejected. “Firstly, the very day they rejected it, we submitted it to the Review Committee within an hour. The Review Committee took another 12 or 13 days and then rejected it as well,” he explained.

Another major point of contention for Sharma is the lack of specific details in the CBFC's rejection letter. Asked whether the letter mentioned the exact grounds or sections under which Sahiya was blocked, he said the Board had cited broad provisions but had not identified the precise scenes that allegedly violated them.

“Yes, I’ll tell you. For instance, they wrote that the film depicts excessive violence or is insensitive to societal norms. They cited various clauses from the guidelines framed under Section 5B(2) of the Act of 1952. But surely, they need to specify which scene violates that section, right?” Sharma said.

He continued, “The section itself is broad—does the violation involve a gunshot, a stabbing, or something regarding tribals? They need to be specific. I am amazed by this Censor Board letter; it doesn’t cite a single specific scene. We are aware of the sections—even children know the law—but tell us where exactly we violated that section. That is our right.”

That, ultimately, is the core of Sharma's battle. He argues that a filmmaker cannot effectively respond to an objection if the objection itself is vague. If the Board believes a particular dialogue, scene, depiction or sequence violates the guidelines, he wants that material identified and the reasoning placed on record.

The controversy surrounding Sahiya has already raised broader questions about how independent and small-budget films navigate the certification system. Sharma believes the financial and emotional consequences of prolonged delays are particularly severe for filmmakers without the resources of a large studio. Every postponed day can affect theatres, publicity campaigns, distribution arrangements and the hundreds of people whose work is tied to a film's release.

For Sharma, the matter has therefore moved beyond one certificate. “You might have an issue with me or with ‘4 PM’, but why hold up a film that represents the blood, sweat, and hard work of 100 to 200 people?” His question is directed at a system he believes must distinguish between an individual filmmaker's background and the artistic work created by an entire team.

As Sahiya continues its fight through the certification process, Sharma says he remains prepared to take the matter to the High Court if necessary. His demand is straightforward: transparency, specific objections and an opportunity for filmmakers to respond to those objections on record.

For a first-time producer-director who spent 35 years in journalism before making the transition to cinema, the experience has clearly been a difficult one. But Sharma insists that neither his journalism career nor the name of his organisation should be allowed to overshadow the film itself.

“The producer should be given a proper, recorded explanation,” Sharma maintains. And for him, that is no longer just a demand concerning Sahiya. It is a demand for greater accountability in a system that, he argues, should regulate cinema without making filmmakers feel powerless before it.