The 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) has found itself at the centre of controversy, not for the films it champions, but for the voices it excludes. The 12-member feature film jury, led by actor and politician Raja Bundela, includes zero women. In a year where Indian cinema has witnessed historic wins powered by female filmmakers, the all-male panel has triggered widespread criticism online, reopening the conversation around representation, privilege and blind spots in cultural institutions.
Social media reacted swiftly after the jury list was announced. Users filled IFFI’s Instagram comment section questioning the lack of gender representation. One asked if women would be given a “separate jury,” while others labelled the panel a “manel” (all-male panel) a term that has become synonymous with tokenised or outdated decision-making spaces.
Critics pointed out the irony: film festivals celebrate diverse storytelling, yet their gatekeepers often remain homogeneous. Many users argued that a jury evaluating cinema today should reflect the audiences that consume it and the voices redefining it.
The backlash hits harder when viewed against the backdrop of 2024. This has arguably been one of Indian cinema’s biggest years for female creators. Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies was selected as India’s official entry to the Oscars, spotlighting her sharp, empathetic storytelling on a global stage. Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine As Light has earned international acclaim, winning hearts across film circuits and securing nominations that place her among the most celebrated Indian directors in recent times.
These achievements are not statistical outliers, they represent a shifting cinematic landscape. Women are shaping narratives, leading projects and redefining creative benchmarks. Yet, at one of India’s most prestigious film festivals, their presence is conspicuously absent from the jury box.
Juries do more than rate films. They influence careers, shape discourse, validate stories and determine cultural memory. A lack of representation does not merely signal inequality, it creates blind spots in perspective, experience and cultural nuance.
When decision-making tables exclude women, even in years where women dominate the creative conversation, the message feels contradictory: celebrate their work, but not their judgment.
Indian cinema has evolved rapidly. Film sets, writers’ rooms and directors’ chairs are more diverse than ever. But institutional leadership often lags behind the stories on screen. Critics argue that change cannot stop at storytelling, it must extend to who evaluates, endorses and rewards that storytelling.
IFFI has always described itself as a festival that celebrates “the best in global cinema.” But global cinema is not a single voice, a single gender or a single perspective.
As the debate grows louder, one question remains:
Shouldn’t the jury represent the future of cinema, not its past?
