Censor Puzzler: Why Dhurandhar 2 Teaser Needed Certification While Toxic Did Not

The recent decision by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant an A certificate to the teaser of Dhurandhar 2, starring Ranveer Singh, has reignited a long-standing debate around censorship in Indian cinema. The controversy becomes even sharper when contrasted with the teaser of Toxic, starring Yash, which faced public outrage for explicit content but was released on YouTube without any certification.

The contrasting treatment of the two teasers has once again exposed the grey areas in India’s film certification framework, especially in an era where digital platforms dominate content consumption.

Why Dhurandhar 2 Teaser Was Certified

The A certificate given to the Dhurandhar 2 teaser was not because of its online release but due to its theatrical exhibition. The teaser was attached to the theatrical prints of Border 2, which meant it would be screened in cinema halls before the film.

Under the Cinematograph Act of 1952, any visual content shown in theatres—whether a film, trailer, or teaser—must be certified by the CBFC. Once Dhurandhar 2’s teaser entered cinema halls, it automatically came under the board’s jurisdiction, leading to the A certification for theatrical screening.

This requirement applies irrespective of whether the same content is freely available online.

Why Toxic Escaped Certification

In contrast, the Toxic teaser was released only on digital platforms, primarily YouTube. Since the CBFC’s authority does not extend to content meant exclusively for online release, the teaser did not require certification.

The teaser, which reportedly featured explicit sexual visuals, triggered complaints from bodies like the Karnataka State Commission for Women and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Despite the uproar, the CBFC could not intervene as the teaser was not intended for theatrical screening.

CBFC Chairman Prasoon Joshi has previously clarified this distinction, stating that much of the content available on YouTube and OTT platforms is not certified, and audiences often mistakenly assume that everything they watch online has passed through the censor board.

Theatrical vs Digital: Two Rulebooks

Cinema halls are treated as public exhibition spaces, where content is shown to a mixed audience that may include children, families, and viewers who did not actively choose the specific teaser. This places responsibility on exhibitors and the certification board to ensure age-appropriate content.

Digital platforms operate differently. Viewers actively search, click, and consume content, often with optional parental controls and age gates. While the effectiveness of these safeguards is debatable, the responsibility largely shifts from the state to platforms and individual users.

This split has resulted in a paradox: content deemed suitable only for adults in theatres can be accessed freely online by anyone with a smartphone.

Does Censorship Still Work in the Social Media Age?

The Dhurandhar 2 teaser controversy highlights a deeper issue—the diminishing relevance of traditional censorship. Once a teaser is uploaded online, it spreads instantly across YouTube, Instagram, X, and messaging platforms, often reaching millions before its theatrical screening.

This creates two parallel realities. In cinemas, age restrictions apply. Online, the same content exists without barriers. As a result, certification risks becoming a symbolic exercise rather than a meaningful safeguard.

A System in Need of Rethink

India’s certification framework was designed in an era when theatres were the primary channel of film distribution. Today, with digital-first releases, viral teasers, and algorithm-driven content discovery, that model appears outdated.

The debate sparked by Dhurandhar 2 and Toxic underscores the need for comprehensive reform—one that acknowledges cross-platform content circulation and focuses on informed viewing rather than selective policing.

As Indian cinema increasingly pushes boundaries with violent and graphic storytelling, the question is no longer just about censorship, but about whether the current system serves any real purpose in protecting audiences or merely performs a procedural role.