The Hindi biopic Phule (2025), directed by Ananth Mahadevan, received a U certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) only after its makers accepted a set of changes to caste terms and historical references. The pressure followed objections from Brahmin community associations to the film’s trailer, which they said portrayed their community one-sidedly. Earlier Marathi films about the same reformer, PK Atre’s Mahatma Phule (1954) and Nilesh Jalamkar’s Satyashodhak (2024), also depicted caste discrimination, and the available reporting does not show that they met the same demands. The main explanation offered, from an anonymous academic quoted by Scroll, is audience reach: the earlier films were in Marathi, while this one is in Hindi. That is an interpretation, not an official CBFC reason.
The events below were reported in 2025. This article does not establish whether the film’s situation has changed since then.
What the film is and what the CBFC record shows
Phule is a Hindi-language biographical feature about Jyotirao Phule and his wife Savitribai Phule. It is a fictionalised dramatisation of historical figures, not a documentary. Ananth Mahadevan directed it, and the cast is led by Pratik Gandhi and Patralekha.
The CBFC’s public record lists the film in the U category, with certificate number DIL/1/19/2025-MUM, a certificate date of March 21, 2025, and a certified length of 129.59 metres. Press reports from the same period describe the certificate as issued in April. The two dates conflict, and the available sources do not resolve the discrepancy. The timeline below keeps both.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
What the censors asked the makers to change
Scroll reported that the CBFC requested edits to references to the Mang and Mahar communities, to Manu, and to Peshwa rule, along with a line about the length of oppression. The Indian Express interview with Mahadevan gives more specific wording, and the table below combines both accounts.
| Reference in the film | Reported change | Source of the detail |
|---|---|---|
| Line “3,000 saal puraani gulaami” | Changed to “kai saal purani hai” | Scroll |
| Subtitle using “caste” | Changed to “varna” | Indian Express interview |
| Dialogue naming “Mahar” and “Mang” | Replaced with “aise choti choti” | Indian Express interview |
| Voiceover on Manu’s caste system | Changed; the replacement wording is not stated | Indian Express interview |
| References to Peshwa rule | Edit requested; the specific change is not stated | Scroll |
Mahadevan told the Indian Express that the makers carried out 12 suggested changes in total. The sources do not list all twelve, so the table above is partial. The CBFC’s full examination report was not available to the reporting, so the exact basis for each request is not documented.
Rank #2
The director’s account
Mahadevan said the team accepted the changes because it wanted a U certificate, which allows audiences of all ages to watch. He described the requested changes as undesirable. He also said there was “nothing so volatile that it would have hurt people’s sentiments,” and that “we are cushioning ourselves behind certain imaginary band-aids which are not helping in any way.” These are his statements; the reporting does not include an independent check of how accurately the film depicts history.
Timeline of the controversy
- Trailer and objections. Brahmin community associations objected after the trailer was released. The exact date of the trailer release is not stated in the sources.
- The objectors’ position. Brahmin Federation president Anand Dave told The New Indian Express: “The story is one-sided. We are not against showing the truth, but it should be inclusive. The film could stoke caste-based tensions.” These are the objectors’ claims about the film, not an independent description of it.
- CBFC amendments. The CBFC requested edits, and the makers carried out 12 suggested changes, according to Mahadevan.
- Certificate. The CBFC record gives March 21, 2025 as the certificate date. Contemporaneous press reports describe issuance in April.
- Release date. The New Indian Express reported on April 9 that the release had been rescheduled to April 21. PTI later reported a planned release of April 25, 2025. Mahadevan told PTI that the delay was meant to let the controversy settle and allow audiences to see the film peacefully, and that the CBFC amendments were not the reason for the postponement.
Why the earlier biopics are part of the comparison
Scroll identifies two earlier Marathi films about Phule. Both depict the heckling Phule faced at a Brahmin wedding, a Dalit boy being prevented from using a well, support from progressive Brahmins, and Phule’s adoption of a Brahmin orphan. Scroll says both contain caste terms and other social and historical detail that Mahadevan was reportedly asked to remove from his own film.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #3
| Work | Year and language | Reported censorship or release experience |
|---|---|---|
| Mahatma Phule, directed by PK Atre | 1954, Marathi | Not stated in the sources |
| Satyashodhak, directed by Nilesh Jalamkar | 2024, Marathi | Jalamkar told Scroll the film had no major censor-board or theatrical-release problems. He recalled “some noises from Brahmin groups,” and said the state government supported the film and gave it tax-free status. |
| Bharat Ek Khoj, directed by Shyam Benegal (episode on Phule) | 1988–1989, language not stated | Not stated in the sources. This is a screen portrayal of Phule’s opposition to casteism and his emphasis on education, but not one of the two feature films compared here. |
Jalamkar’s account is one director’s recollection. It does not prove that Satyashodhak met no objections at all, and it does not establish that Mahatma Phule faced none.
The audience-reach explanation
Scroll reports that an academic who studied Phule, and who spoke anonymously, suggested the difference in reception may come from language. The Marathi films reached a more limited audience, while Mahadevan’s film, in Hindi, could reach a wider one, and so drew more scrutiny.
Rank #4
This is a reasoned hypothesis, not a finding. It is not the CBFC’s stated reason, and no source establishes it as the cause of the requested edits. The reporting also does not test other possible factors, such as how the trailer circulated or when the objections emerged.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is established and what is not
- Established in reporting: caste-related edits were requested; Brahmin community associations objected to the trailer; the makers carried out 12 suggested changes, according to Mahadevan; the film received a U certificate; and its release was delayed.
- Attributed, not established: the objectors’ claim that the film is one-sided; the academic’s audience explanation; and any motive the CBFC may have had.
- Not covered by the sources: the CBFC’s full examination report, an independent review of the film’s historical accuracy, and a complete list of the twelve changes.
- No trend can be drawn: three works are too few to show a pattern in how Phule films are treated by censors or audiences.
For Phule’s own writings, Scroll points readers to Selected Writings of Jotirao Phule. The reporting does not identify a specific edition.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
