There have been so many interesting talks about film censorship, applying cuts in films, ban on so many films, film certification. All of us must have seen movies and have heard these stuffs also. But do we know that each and every film has to get passed through an authority before reaching the general public! We have plenty of examples of disputes about censorship like Vishwaroopam, Udta Punjab, Bandit Queen, Tamas, etc. Let’s find out what film censorship is all about:
~Introduction~
As we all know, Indian Constitution has provided the freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)] and by virtue of that everyone has got the right to portray his/ her views in accordance with the exceptions given in Article 19(2). Books, Movies, Media, Magazines, everything has been a part of that freedom, but in a very short duration after the independence of the country, the Parliament passed a specific legislation to regulate films i.e. The Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Act established what, in technical language, is known as “prior restraint”: that is, it required filmmakers to obtain clearances from a certification board (commonly known as the “censor board”) before their films could be screened for the public. In other words, the Cinematograph Act authorised a government body to forbid the exercise of the freedom of expression (i.e., films) even before it could enter the marketplace of ideas.
~Film Censorship in India~
A classic example of censorship in India is the Central Board of Film Certification or Censor Board, which comes under the purview of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Board regularly orders, directors to remove anything it deems offensive or subjects considered to be politically subversive. The censorship of films is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It assigns certification as Universal, Adults, and Parental Guidance to films in India before the public exhibition. Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a Statutory body under Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952. Films can be publicly exhibited in India only after they have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification.
~Constitutionality~
The constitutional validity of the Cinematograph Act and its attendant guidelines was challenged by filmmaker K.A. Abbas. In 1970, the case came to be decided by Chief Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah, who—five years earlier—had upheld the ban on Lady Chatterley’s Lover on the grounds that it would tend to deprave and corrupt the morally vulnerable, and had adopted an 1860s English test for determining “obscenity”. In the landmark case of Censorship- K.A.Abbas v. The Union of India the court held that “Pre-censorship is nothing but an aspect of censorship.” It further observed: ‘ it has been almost universally recognised that the treatment of motion pictures must be different from that of other forms of art and expression. This arises from the instant appeal of the motion picture, its versatility, realism (often surrealism), and its coordination of the visual and aural senses. The art of the cameraman, with trick photography, vista vision and three-dimensional representation thrown in, has made the cinema picture more true to life than even the theatre or indeed any other form of representative art. The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Its effect, particularly on children and adolescents, is very great since their immaturity makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief than mature men and women. They also remember the action in the picture and try to emulate or imitate what they have seen.’ The court held that Censorship of films including prior restraint is justified under Constitution.
~Censorship Cases~
In the case of Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, the court once again justified pre-censorship of a file because it caters to a mass audience, it has the unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings and has as much potential for evil as it has for good. A film cannot, therefore, be allowed to function in a free marketplace just as newspapers or magazines do.
It has been observed that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of the threat of demonstration or threats of violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. The state cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. Freedom of speech and expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.
In 2016 a movie named Udta Punjab drew the attention of the public when Censor Board proposed 13 cuts in the film. The CBFC’s role came under scrutiny over regarding the release of the movie in which it asked for cuts, including removal of all references to the state and its cities. The petitioner before the Bombay high court, co-producer Phantom Films, said that the CBFC was not acting like the certifying authority that it was, but as a censor board.
The Bombay high court asked the CBFC to not be over-sensitive in matters of art and asked that the film be cleared with minor cuts. “Udta Punjab is a movie depicting the drug menace based in a place. There is no mention of the word ‘censor’ in the board. The board should use its powers as per Constitution and Supreme Court’s directions,” the bench observed. The court said that if people do not like something they have a remote and the CBFC should only certify and not censor it.
A new dispute arose when CBFC denied to give certificate to an award winning movie ‘Lipstic Under My Burkha’. The Board was of the view that it was ‘too lady-oriented.’ However, On Wednesday(26th April) an appeal board overturned that decision, saying the CBFC “misdirected themselves in denying certification on the ground that the story of the film is women oriented”.
~Shyam Benegal Committee Report on Cinematograph Act ~
On 1st January 2016 in sync with the overarching vision of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi and Hon’ble Union Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Shri Arun Jaitley, to lay down a holistic framework for certification of films, a Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Shri Shyam Benegal to lay down norms for film certification that take note of best practices in various parts of the world and give sufficient and adequate space for artistic and creative expression, lay down procedures and guidelines for the benefit of the CBFC Board to follow and examine staffing patterns with a view to recommending a framework that would provide efficient and transparent user-friendly services.
The Committee chaired by Shri Shyam Benegal submitted major part of their recommendation to Hon’ble Union Minister of Information & Broadcasting, Shri Arun Jaitley this evening. Following are the major highlights of the report –
CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity except in the following instances to refuse certification –
1. When a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
2. When content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.
3. The applicant must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.
The objective of these guidelines would be to ensure that –
1. Children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or unsuitable content
2. Audiences, particularly parents are empowered to make informed viewing decisions
3. Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films
4. The process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all times, to social change
5. The certification by CBFC keeps within the rights and obligations as laid down in the Indian Constitution.
~Conclusion~
According to honourable Supreme Court: “Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in the semi-darkness of the theatre with the elimination of all distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to install or cultivate violent or bad behaviour. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.” But in this modern world, it would be inappropriate to cut down the rights of people to put down freely their views by any means. Censoring of film, however, has been questioned time to time, now is the time to revise the laws and change in the manner that would be acceptable to the society.
A fresh petition has been filed before the Supreme Court. Actor-director Amol Palekar has challenged India’s censorship laws in the Supreme Court, arguing that decisions on making cuts and denying certification are largely arbitrary in nature. The provisions of these laws, Palekar has said, have not been questioned in the last 47 years and have failed to keep up with the times. He has also demanded that recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee, which was set up to look into the norms and best practices on film certification, be put into action. Let’s see what happens now.
Kailasha Foundation - Bringing Solutions To You
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn for regular updates.
