Salman Khan’s Maatrubhumi: Can the government delay a film before certification?

Salman Khan’s new film Maatrubhumi: May War Rest In Peace has been delayed again even before it received the CBFC certification.

Earlier named as Battle of Galwan, the film is set on the 2020 face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers in Galwan Valley.

As per the report of Mid-day dated October 24, 2026, the filmmakers are yet to receive a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Ministry of Defence.

It has been shown to ministry officials earlier this year, according to the report. The filmmakers have edited the film and resubmitted it for a screening earlier this month.

But the ministry is said to still be waiting for a final reply.

This delay has spurred an important legal question: Can a government ministry block a film from even reaching the censor board, even though the Cinematograph Act gives the CBFC the task of determining whether films are fit to be shown in public?

Not so simple. Sometimes the state may place the law on the side of filmmakers, in limited cases, especially where the security of the nation is at stake and the source of that information is official and military. But it cannot restrict the right without a legal basis and without following the rules set out in the constitution.

What Is the Controversy Surrounding Maatrubhumi?

The film is helmed by Apoorva Lakhia and stars Salman Khan as Colonel Bikkumalla Santosh Babu.

Colonel Santosh Babu – occurred in the June 2020 clash at the Galwan Valley.

The whole episode created very deep tensions between the two powers, India and China.

The film was first announced as Battle of Galwan. The very first posters for the film which was announced, were centered around the military clash.

However, the project later underwent substantial changes.

The title was altered to Maatrubhumi: May War Rest in Peace and there was talk that the makers had tugged at the loose strings with respect to China.

There have also been reports of extra filming and changes to the storyline.

It was to be released in April 2026. Release schedules later were also not realised.

By early October, it was reported that the new cut of the film had received the ‘green light’ from government and could be released in cinemas on November 13.

The picture is also different in October 24 report.

The Ministry of Defence has not yet given the necessary NOC, that report said.

No final public government order has been published confirming the exact reason for which clearance is awaiting.

Why Does the Film Need Approval From the Defence Ministry?

Films range may put up issues outside of standard entertainment regulation.

Whether it is access to military locations, equipment, military personnel or other assets of the armed forces.

In those instances the Ministry of Defence have the powers to place restrictions over the utilisation of these facilities and resources.

The government might also look at whether the production reveals sensitive military information, or uses aid inappropriately.

But there is a distinction in the law between granting the right to use government-controlled military means, and having an overarching power to give the thumbs-up to every armed forces film.

Statutory framework for certification of film is laid down by the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Nor does it, simply by the fact that any films might be depicting soldiers, impose an automatic requirement that every filmmaker must separately seek a Defence Ministry sanction before applying to the CBFC.

Some individual productions might need permission due to negotiations, government aid, access arrangements or other formal compliance issues.

The news reports however do not clarify whether such a requirement exists as there is no information on the legality of the Maatrubhumi.

What Is the CBFC’s Legal Role?

Find out what the Central Board of Film Certification is, how it works, and how it relates to your rights to access information in India.

It is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.

For a movie to be shown in any cinema for the first time, it has to receive the approbate certificate.

CBFC considers the film and determines if it is in accordance with the law.

The board can issue an appropriate certificate, request some alterations or decline certification following the statutory provisions.

The board does not have unlimited discretion.

Any decisions will need to be made under the Act, relevant rules and certification guidelines.

In March 2026, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stated that reductions or edits are advised for content falling outside statutory limits related to, for example, national security, public order, decency, morality or friendly relations with foreign countries.

So CBFC has power to take a hard look at politically sensitive and military propaganda material.

But it has to exercise that power using the process provided by law.

Is it possible for the government to postpone a film?

There can be many reasons for delay before certification.

The film is perhaps still in postproduction.

They could also be discussing contractual terms or requests regarding the production.

Some may also delay making a submission until they know it is going to be challenged.

Those cases are different from the government never allowing the movie to be submitted.

Where a specific legal power exists in a ministry to require clearance, the filmmakers may have to adhere to that requirement.

But, if the government agency thwarts the filing without legitimate ground, then the restriction may be challenged.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression.

It’s not only the cinema but also the representation of art.

Article 19(2) allows reasonable restriction for specified grounds such as security of the State, public order and friendly relations with foreign states.

A restriction cannot be sustained simply on the ground that government officials were unhappy with the political content of a film.

Interference can only occur if there is a legally valid ground for it.

The government has no choice but to operate within its statutory and constitutional capabilities.

Is It Possible That China Concerns Could Serve as a Legal Justification for Delaying the Movie?

Maatrubhumi news is politically sensitive as it relates to a military standoff between India and China.

There were reports that officials had expressed objection to the film’s depiction of China when the countries’ diplomatic relationship was on the mend.

Government might refuse certification for a film under certain specified grounds listed under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act.

Is the State’s security and amicable relations with foreign states.

This shows that international relations can be applicable to be on film certification.

Yet, just because a film is labeled as sensitive doesn’t mean that it is violating a law.

The content must be evaluated in light of the statutory requirements.

It cannot automatically be unlawful to show a film about a historical military conflict just because its topic continues to be politically sensitive.

The CBFC needs to look at the material that has been actually offered for certification.

What if another ministry requests alterations prior to the film’s submission?

In that context, the authorities need to know which legal grounds for intervention apply.

What Does the Supreme Court Say About Film Censorship?

The Supreme Court has addressed this link between the relationship of cinema and freedom of expression and again.

The court was called upon to decide in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) on the issue whether film censorship is in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

It conceded that the medium permitted a system of prior approval of films.

But the Court did accept the proposition that censorship was subject to constitutional restrictions.

In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Court considered a petition against a film on political and social grounds.