India Insights: The Censorship of Love - Superman’s Kiss and the Culture Wars
DC Studios/Warner Bros.
As Superman hovered mid-air, battered but triumphant, he leaned in for a kiss with Lois Lane, a moment of tenderness after saving the world. But for Indian audiences, that kiss never came. The screen jumped. A clumsy edit, and the scene abruptly moved on.
These weren’t explicit scenes. They were brief, PG‑13 romantic gestures that audiences around the world saw in full. But the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) deemed them “overly sensual,” and demanded their removal before granting the film a UA certificate. The message? Western romance is too scandalous for Indian eyes.
This censorship has reignited a familiar cultural debate: Why is consensual affection censored more strictly than violence, toxic behavior, or sexism in Indian cinema? What makes a kiss more dangerous than a fistfight? And what does it say about India’s shifting values, its cinematic gatekeepers, and the way global stories are reshaped to fit local moral codes?
While bloodied brawls and slow-motion gun battles often glide through certification with minimal cuts, a 33-second kiss between fictional lovers is viewed as morally disruptive. The CBFC’s decision to censor “Superman: Legacy” for scenes it called “too sensual” has not only baffled global audiences but also exposed the inconsistent, and arguably hypocritical, standards applied to content in Indian cinema.
What Was Censored And Why?
The total runtime of these censored scenes amounted to about 41 seconds. While seemingly minor in length, the emotional and narrative disruption was noticeable. The cuts were made after the CBFC labeled the scenes as "overly sensual", a classification that could have pushed the film into an "A" (Adults Only) category, significantly narrowing its audience.
To avoid this, Warner Bros. agreed to the CBFC’s condition to secure a UA (13+) rating, India’s equivalent of a PG-13 certification. Without these edits, the board reportedly refused to approve the film for a broader release.
The certification was officially granted on July 7, 2025, just days before the film’s global premiere. For Indian fans, the result was a superhero love story with its most human moments conspicuously missing.
The Case for Cultural Sensitivity
Supporters of the CBFC’s decision argue that cultural context cannot be ignored when releasing global content in India. They contend that while affection and intimacy may be normalized in Western cinema, Indian audiences, especially in smaller towns and conservative households, still hold different expectations of what is appropriate for public viewing. For many, cinema is a shared, family-friendly space, and a kiss, however mild, may provoke discomfort or conflict. The CBFC’s guidelines, they argue, reflect not regressive control but an attempt to balance artistic expression with cultural norms. From this perspective, censorship is not about moral policing. It is about maintaining a level of sensitivity in a diverse and pluralistic society where not all viewers share the same thresholds of comfort.
Public Backlash And Criticism
The CBFC’s decision to censor Superman’s kiss scenes sparked swift and widespread backlash across social media and pop culture forums. Viewers and critics alike slammed the board’s rationale, accusing it of blatant hypocrisy.
Actors and creators also joined the criticism. Indian actor and filmmaker Shreya Dhanwanthary called the censorship “ridiculous,” pointing out that the board’s priorities seem to police romance more harshly than brutality. Others argued that the decision reflects an outdated mindset that’s out of sync with the values of modern Indian viewers exposed to global content.
Many viewers also complained about the jarring nature of the edits, noting that they interrupted the emotional pacing and broke narrative continuity. In a film where relationships are central to character motivation, the removal of these scenes felt unnatural and ironically, drew more attention to the very moments the CBFC sought to erase.
As the online backlash grew, so did a renewed conversation: What does India’s censorship culture really protect and who decides what’s “too much” for audiences?
The Double Standard: Intimacy vs. Violence
India’s film censorship history reveals a striking, and often baffling pattern: violence is permissible, but romance, especially physical affection is policed with vigilance. While the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has long projected itself as a guardian of public morality, its selective morality is increasingly under fire.
Take the example of Animal, one of the biggest Bollywood releases in recent years. The film, despite receiving a U/A certificate, featured graphic violence, gun battles, blood-soaked brawls, and an overtly toxic portrayal of masculinity, all with little interference from censors. Similarly, Marco, another recent release, was flagged by critics for its portrayal of gendered aggression but passed through the CBFC without notable cuts.
In contrast, Hollywood films are frequently modified to align with Indian sensibilities, even when their content is relatively mild. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer had a brief intimate scene censored, F1: The Movie underwent edits for profanity, and Thunderbolts was altered to replace an emoji the board found suggestive.In comparison, Hollywood films are often altered for Indian sensibilities, even when the content is far milder. Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer had a brief intimate scene censored, F1: The Movie faced edits for profanity, and Thunderbolts had an emoji changed in a context the board deemed suggestive.
The trend is telling: a clothed kiss between two adults in a romantic context is seen as more “damaging” than a stylized explosion or a misogynistic rant. This suggests that Indian censorship isn’t just about protecting viewers, it’s about controlling narratives around sexuality and cultural identity.
The result? A skewed cinematic landscape where violence is normalized and intimacy is demonized.
Global Films, Local Lens
India, being the most populous country in the world is an important crowd-bringer even for Hollywood films. Hence, to navigate the complexities of India’s censorship landscape, many international studios now preemptively self-censor.
In the case of Superman: Legacy, reports suggest that Warner Bros. edited the film before even submitting it to the Central Board of Film Certification, aiming to expedite approval and secure a UA certificate before its July 7 release. IIt’s an increasingly common industry trend: global films are trimming content not for creative reasons, but to avoid delays or rating disputes in one of the world’s largest cinema markets.
But this strategy often comes at the cost of authentic storytelling, especially when applied to scenes involving intimacy, identity, or politics. The clash becomes especially visible when a digitally savvy Indian audience, used to streaming unfiltered global content, notices these abrupt omissions on the big screen. The disconnect between audience expectation and censorial conservatism is growing. For younger viewers in urban India, affection on screen isn’t scandalous, but it’s standard. But for the CBFC, it remains a red flag.
Why It Matters?
If even Superman can’t kiss on Indian screens, what hope is there for everyday expressions of love in Indian cinema?
These choices by the CBFC reveal deep-seated anxieties about public decency, Western influence, and the boundaries of desire. In a nation where film shapes culture as much as it reflects it, deciding which gestures of love are acceptable becomes a question of who controls the narrative and whose morality prevails.
In an increasingly global, connected India, audiences are asking for more openness, not less. But as long as censors continue to guard the gates of intimacy, the most human parts of our stories will remain the most heavily redacted.
