India’s revised film-certification guidelines largely preserve the existing certification framework, but one change is likely to matter in practice: scenes involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances must now carry a prescribed statutory warning. For filmmakers and producers, the point is not merely editorial. Drug-related scenes may now require early compliance review during scripting, editing and post-production, even where the scene is intended to discourage substance abuse.

Issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 16 September 2026 under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the revised guidelines supersede the 1991 guidelines, subject to actions already taken or omitted before supersession.

When does the new drug-warning requirement apply?

The key takeaway is that the warning operates as an additional compliance layer. It does not replace the substantive certification test, and it does not cure a depiction that otherwise breaches the guidelines.

What triggers the warning?

Paragraph 2(h) requires any scene depicting or involving the consumption, use or trafficking of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances to carry the prescribed statutory warning: “Illicit Narcotics Destroy Health and Guarantees Imprisonment. Say No to Drugs.” The breadth of the trigger is important. The warning requirement is not limited to scenes that glamourise or justify drug use; it may also apply where the depiction is cautionary, incidental or central to the storyline.

How paragraph 2(h) differs from the earlier test

The earlier guidelines, and paragraph 2(f) of the revised guidelines, focus on whether a scene encourages, justifies or glamorises drug addiction. Paragraph 2(h) is different. It creates a separate warning requirement for scenes depicting or involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, even where the scene does not promote drug use. A film that portrays the harmful consequences of addiction may therefore still need to carry the warning.

A warning is not a safe harbour

Conversely, the inclusion of the warning does not make a scene permissible, and a scene that breaches the certification guidelines still remains a problem even with the warning on it. Structurally, paragraph 2(h) is also the only limb of paragraph 2 that requires something to be added to a film. Every other limb tells the Board what to keep out.

Scope of the warning requirement: what remains unclear?

The result is a seemingly simple obligation with several open questions. The revised guidelines prescribe the wording of the warning, but they do not fully explain when, how or to which pending films it must be applied.

Scope: Paragraph 2(h) applies to scenes “depicting or involving” the consumption, use or trafficking of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, but the guidelines do not define either expression. The obvious reference point is the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, although the revised guidelines do not expressly incorporate that statute. This leaves room for difficult cases: a character taking prescribed psychotropic medication, a brief visual reference to drug use, or even a spoken reference with no visual depiction. The prescribed warning refers to “illicit narcotics”, but the trigger itself is not expressly confined to illicit use.

Presentation of the prescribed warning: The guidelines prescribe the wording of the warning but do not specify its duration, placement, font size or language. This is likely to matter most for dubbed, regional-language and multilingual releases, where producers may need clarity on whether the warning should appear in the language of the film, in English, or in both. Until the CBFC issues directions or settles a practice, these presentation choices may need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Applicability to pending applications before the CBFC: The revised guidelines supersede the 1991 guidelines while preserving actions taken or omitted before supersession. They do not, however, expressly say how the new warning requirement applies to films already submitted for certification but awaiting a decision. The position is also unclear for films that have already been certified but are yet to be released.

For producers with films at different stages of certification or release, clarity on the application of the revised requirement would be particularly relevant.

Other certification touchpoints that remain relevant

The drug-warning requirement is the principal new compliance point, but it sits within a wider certification framework that continues to shape how films are assessed. The following existing touchpoints remain relevant for producers, particularly when drug-related scenes intersect with age classification, public order, courtroom depictions, national symbols or film titles.

1. Age-based certification categories: Paragraph 5(b) retains the UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+ classifications introduced under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, and later incorporated into the 1991 Guidelines through a 2025 amendment. Paragraph 5(a) also continues to require that a film certified for unrestricted public exhibition be suitable for family viewing. This is where paragraph 2(h) may have practical significance. A drug-related scene may not automatically determine the certification category, but it may invite closer scrutiny under the family-viewing standard and affect whether the film is treated as suitable for U, UA or A certification.
2. Public order and State interests: Paragraphs 2(p) to (s) remain unchanged and continue to require that films do not call into question India’s sovereignty and integrity, jeopardise State security, strain friendly relations with foreign States or endanger public order.
3. Courtroom depictions: Paragraph 2(t) prohibits visuals or words involving defamation or contempt of court. The explanation further extends the scope of “contempt of court” to scenes that tend to create scorn, disgrace or disregard of rules, or undermine the dignity of the Court, in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This provision assumes particular significance for courtroom dramas, where the portrayal of judges or judicial proceedings in an unflattering light may attract scrutiny.
4. National symbols and emblems: Paragraph 2(u) permits their depiction only in accordance with the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Producers should also be mindful of related legislation governing the use and depiction of national symbols.
5. Film titles: Paragraph 6 remains unchanged. The CBFC must continue to scrutinise titles to ensure they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or otherwise contrary to the certification guidelines.

Implications for filmmakers and producers

For filmmakers and producers, the revised guidelines add a compliance check that should be considered during scripting, editing and post-production. Drug-related scenes now require two separate assessments: first, whether the depiction is permissible under the certification guidelines; and second, whether it attracts the prescribed warning. This distinction is especially important where drug-related content is integral to the storyline, even if the scene is intended to discourage substance abuse.

Theatrical and OTT releases require separate analysis

Further, the revised guidelines have been issued in exercise of the Central Government’s powers under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and govern the CBFC’s certification of films for public exhibition. Their application should, therefore, be distinguished from the separate regulatory framework governing content made available on over-the-top (OTT) platforms under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Producers intending to release films across theatrical and digital platforms should assess the applicable requirements for each mode of exhibition or distribution rather than assume that the revised CBFC guidelines apply uniformly across all platforms.

Conclusion

The revised guidelines retain much of the existing film-certification framework, but paragraph 2(h) introduces a distinct compliance point for drug-related scenes. Until the CBFC’s practice develops, filmmakers and producers should identify such scenes early, assess whether the warning is triggered, and consider how the warning will be presented across theatrical, dubbed and regional-language versions. Early review may reduce the risk of avoidable cuts, last-minute modifications or certification delays.