A committee chaired by eminent filmmaker Shyam Benegal has submitted its recommendations to the government.
Recommendation of committee:

• CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorizing the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity except in two cases: a) when a film contravenes the provisions of section 5 B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and ; b) When content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.
• Regarding the categorisation of films, the committee recommends that it should be more specific and apart from U category, the UA Category can be broken up into further sub-categories – UA12+ & UA15+. The A category should also be sub-divided into A and AC (Adult with Caution) categories.
• The Certification of films shall be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines proposed for certification that have been split into three sections, with each section required to be read with the other two – General Guidelines, Issue Related Guidelines and Category Specific Guidelines.
• The committee has also made certain recommendations regarding the functioning of the board and has stated that the Board, including Chairman, should only play the role of a guiding mechanism for the CBFC, and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of certification of films.
• The functions of the Board shall be confined to the duties defined in the existing CBFC rules, which inter alia include an annual review of CBFC work, submission of annual report to the government, review of public reactions to films, and periodic recommendations for revision of guidelines. Given these limited functions, the size of the Board should be compact with one member representing each Regional Office. Therefore, the total composition of the Board should not be more than nine members and one Chairman.
• Online submission of applications as well as simplification of forms and accompanying documentation.
• Recertification of a film for purposes of telecast on television or for any other purpose should be permitted.
• In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant be asked to deposit the Director’s Cut in the NFAI for preservation of Indian Cinema, instead of the certified version, in order to truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema.
• Out-of-turn certification may be permitted for which the applicant would have to pay five times the fee that would have to be paid if the certification were done in the normal course
• In the event that complaints are received by the Central Government, the same shall be referred to the CBFC. The Chairperson may, if he considers it necessary to do so, refer the film to a Revising Committee for examination once again, on account of alleged violation of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• Regional Advisory Panel : the committee has laid down the criteria for appointment. All nine regions will have advisory panels comprising persons who are acquainted with the languages being certified by that regional office:

1. Members from all walks of life, recommended by the National Film Development Corporation to the Central Government – 25%
2. Members of the general public recommended by the FFSI (Federation of Film Societies of India) - 25%
3. Members recommended by the National Council for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Commission of Women (NCW)- 25%
4. Representatives of the local film industry, as recommended by FFI (Film Federation of India) – 25%
5. Women to have 50% representation on each Panel. 

 Analysis:

• If categorisation of films implemented properly, this could be a boon for filmmakers as well as audiences. At present, there is a huge, arbitrary gulf between what is considered acceptable for a 'U/A' certificate and the same for an 'A' rating. Additional ratings lying in between the two will provide filmmakers with more options to acquire certification without necessarily having to compromise on content.
• A recommendation regarding the functioning of board will help curb the 'tyranny' of board chairman and ensure that all films are certified in a fair manner.
• According to this suggestion, the pool of Advisory Panel members, could soon be appointed by reputed bodies that work specifically to foster quality in Indian cinema, led by experienced individuals who are likely to be far more discerning in their appointments. Meanwhile, the appointments made by the likes of NCW as well as the provision to ensure "50% representation of women on each Panel" could likely go a long way in curbing misogyny seen in a number of commercial Indian films.
• Recertification of a film for purposes of telecast on television benefit producers who want to make money off satellite rights without any regard to how the film is re-edited — since they can always blame the censors for it.
• In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant be asked to deposit the Director’s Cut in the NFAI for preservation of Indian Cinema , This is a significant reform that, if implemented, would achieve the rare feat of actually respecting a filmmaker's original vision.
• The Shyam Benegal Committee's report, although incomplete, contains several suggestions that are long overdue and definitely represent a step in the right direction. While the introduction of new certification categories is good news, the existence of an unchanged and vague Section 5B (1) continues to leave much more room for interpretation than desired.