New Delhi: A few days ago, when filmmaker Spandan Banerjee learnt that his documentary Parliament Street would not be screened at the International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK) after all, he was bewildered.Banerjee has screened earlier films at the festival and had previously won its award for best documentary. His latest film had also been selected for the festival’s competition, one of only 11 long documentaries chosen from hundreds of submissions. What made the decision more difficult to understand, he said, was that Parliament Street is not a political film.“I have shown my earlier films at the festival, I have won the best documentary prize also in the past, in the same festival,” Banerjee told The Wire. “So that way I have to say that I was and I still am quite hopeful about the festival, the organisers, the old film culture of Kerala and the audience. But this comes to me as a shock.”The film documents People Tree, an artistic space on Delhi’s Parliament Street that operated for 33 years before shutting down in 2023. It focuses on artists, musicians and singers and the closure of the space. “I was bewildered because my film is not really a political film. It is about spaces. It’s a thing about Delhi, my city. And it’s a film about a little space which got shut down after 33 years of functioning,” he said. Banerjee is among filmmakers now seeking an explanation for why their films have been kept out of the festival. The filmmakers have also approached the court in Thiruvananthapuram seeking reasons for the denial of permission, with the matter expected to come up on September 28.The dispute began after the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting initially withheld screening clearance for 31 films selected for the 18th IDSFFK, which began in Thiruvananthapuram on September 25 and runs until September 30. Following intervention by the Kerala government, 23 of the films were subsequently cleared. Eight remain without permission, including five films in competition. The five competition films still awaiting clearance are In Search of Buddha, Redlight to Limelight, Parliament Street, The Mali and the Parasite and Sanitised Republic. Two films in the Focus section — Shimmering Odyssey and Far From Home — and Starlet Echoes, which was on the festival’s waiting list, also remain uncleared.The ministry, however, has rejected the description that it denied permission to the films. On September 21, it said that “permission has not been denied to any film”, adding that six films had been asked to provide more detailed synopses and that some had been sent to sectoral authorities for review depending on their subject matter. Government sources subsequently said films had been referred to the ministries of external affairs, defence and home affairs, while additional information had been sought for six films.The Wire has reached out to the I&B ministry to ask why these films have still not been cleared. This article will be updated if a response is received.Banerjee said Parliament Street was completed and submitted before the festival’s deadline. He received confirmation that it had been received and was subsequently sent a selection letter on August 12.“Only 11 films among hundreds and thousands of films were selected for the long documentary competition. My film was also selected by the selection committee,” he said. “I spoke to each and every member of the selection committee who came up to me and told me how they watched the film, and how they are also surprised, what does my film have to do with politics, other than the name?” Banerjee also added that the film’s subject predates recent student protests associated with Parliament Street, making any attempt to link the documentary to those events chronologically impossible.The uncertainty is also being felt by the makers of In Search of Buddha, a film about a forgotten Naxal leader named Buddha directed by Sharanya Deyy. Producer Rajendra Pramanik said the filmmakers had submitted both the film and its synopsis as part of the clearance process. “We are also trying to figure out why our films were denied screening permission, because our film has no such content in it which is anti-establishment or can provoke anyone,” Pramanik said.He suspects that the presence of particular words in the synopsis may have triggered scrutiny. “The only commonality that I can think of, and everybody may agree with me, that maybe superficially they judged certain words in the synopsis without watching the movie and took a call,” he told The Wire. The synopsis contains the word ‘Naxalism’, Pramanik said, although he stressed that the film neither deals with nor romanticises Naxalism. “Is it just because the word is present in the synopsis and they think it is provocative or problematic?” he asked.The possibility that films are being scrutinised on the basis of their subjects or descriptions, rather than their complete content, is particularly significant because the Academy had already submitted detailed synopses and screeners of 40 films to the ministry after being asked for additional material.The episode is not entirely without precedent in Kerala. At the 2025 International Film Festival of Kerala, 19 films initially faced similar clearance problems; after the Kerala government intervened, 13 were subsequently permitted to screen.The recurrence also comes amid a broader expansion of the Union government’s role in regulating the circulation of audiovisual and online content.At film festivals, the I&B ministry’s role arises from the requirement that films without Central Board of Film Certification certificates obtain an exemption to be screened. The ministry says the process involves review based on the subject matter of films and, in some cases, consultation with other government authorities.Online, the Union government has developed a separate system for communicating content-removal requests to intermediaries. The Sahyog portal, developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, facilitates requests from authorised government agencies to intermediaries to remove or disable access to content. The Wire reported in February, after accessing the portal’s user manual, that the system did not provide for independent review before a takedown request was issued. The government has defended its online regulatory framework as a mechanism for ensuring that intermediaries comply with obligations under existing law.The two systems are legally distinct. But the impact on creativity can be felt equally.That question of this denial is particularly pointed at IDSFFK because these are not films awaiting selection. They have already been chosen by the festival’s own programmers, with five of the remaining eight selected for competition. Their filmmakers have therefore cleared one gate – the festival’s curatorial process – only to find their films unable to reach audiences because of a separate government clearance.Banerjee said that whatever the reason, filmmakers were entitled to know it. “I also feel that all of us who face this, must be given reasons for this denial of space,” he said.As of now, the filmmakers supposed to compete are awaiting the court proceedings that may offer a chance to obtain the explanation that has so far been missing.