Love Story or Threat? Sanjay Sharma Defends Film Sahiya
A romantic drama that draws on the forests and tribal culture of Jharkhand has become the latest subject of debate in India’s film certification system. ‘Sahiya’, a Hindi feature film, is facing renewed objections from the Central Board of Film Certification, and its director has questioned how a love story could be seen as a national concern.
The film’s early certification process ran into trouble on August 27, 2026, when the board refused to certify it. Following a petition in the Bombay High Court, the revising committee watched the film again on October 27 and recommended refusing certification. A letter issued on October 29 detailed new objections related to the storyline, Naxalism, the portrayal of security forces and the depiction of tribal women.
Sanjay Sharma, the producer and director, has rejected these objections as baseless and out of step with the film’s message. He said the film is built on love, humanity and emotional depth, not political advocacy.
According to Sharma, ‘Sahiya’ does not promote any ideology or organisation. He said the film does not support Naxalism and does not glorify violence. Its core theme, he explained, is opposition to violence and respect for human life.
He chose not to reveal the story’s key twists, saying he hopes audiences will watch the film in theatres and feel the love story for themselves. He reiterated, however, that the film does not endorse weapons or violence and instead highlights the power of love and human sensitivity.
Sharma said he finds it difficult to understand the board’s concerns. ‘We did not make a film for political propaganda or for any organisation. We made a beautiful love story that will move people, make them think and carry a message of humanity. Where is the objectionable part?’
The certification timeline has also raised questions. The film was submitted on May 30, 2026. The examining committee viewed it on July 20, and the revising committee held a hearing on August 12. On August 27, the board refused certification, citing sovereignty, integrity, security and public order. The producer’s legal reply says that the order did not specify any particular scene or dialogue and even misspelt the film’s title as ‘Sahitya’.
After that refusal, the producer approached the Bombay High Court. The revising committee’s second review on October 27 relied on different grounds. The sovereignty and integrity charges did not appear in the same form. Instead, the new recommendation pointed to the storyline, several dialogues, the depiction of security forces and scenes involving tribal women.
Sharma questioned this change in direction. ‘If the film was a threat to sovereignty earlier, why are those charges gone now? If the charges were right, why replace them with others? If they were wrong, why was the film held back for so long?’ he asked.
He said the issue concerns the transparency and fairness of the certification process as a whole. A filmmaker, he argued, has every right to know which specific and legally objectionable element is keeping the film from audiences.
He also called the objection to the portrayal of tribal women unfair. He said the film presents tribal society, culture, traditions and dignity with sincerity. The women in the story are shown as brave, self-respecting and strong personalities, and he said accusing the film of insulting them does not reflect its true spirit.
Sharma said the film’s setting and production were deeply rooted in tribal culture. Traditional Kurukh and Oraon folk music is used in the film, and tribal artists contributed to the project. The credits also acknowledge support from the Jharkhand government and related institutions.
On Naxalism, Sharma said a film set in a Naxal-affected area or featuring such characters is not automatically a statement of support. Indian cinema has long dealt with social struggle, crime, violence, police action and political conditions, and treating these themes as endorsement is unfair.
The producer’s legal reply points to films such as ‘Newton’, ‘Haider’, ‘Chakravyuh’, ‘Visaranai’, ‘Vidudhalai’, ‘Paan Singh Tomar’, ‘Sonchiriya’ and ‘Bastar: The Naxal Story’. These films explored sensitive issues from different viewpoints and were certified for cinema release.
The legal matter remains active in the Bombay High Court. The producer has asked the court to reject the October 27 recommendation and to direct certification in an appropriate category. He has also requested the committee’s reports, meeting records, reasons for its decision and a personal hearing.
The film had been set for a nationwide theatrical release on September 18, 2026, but the certification dispute has stalled it. Sharma said the delay is causing hardship for the actors, composers, technicians and others who contributed to the project.
He said he is willing to consider any clear and reasonable objection from the board. The producer’s legal reply also suggests that the film could be certified with an A rating or UA 16+, along with a disclaimer stating that the story is fictional and does not intend to insult any security force, community or institution, or to support violence.
‘The law offers several options, including category certification, limited modifications and disclaimers,’ Sharma said. ‘These should be considered carefully before refusing an entire film. We respect the Censor Board and want to follow the law, but we also want to know clearly what in our film is considered unacceptable.’