<p>Governments since the times of monarchs have tried to curb the freedom of speech and artistic expression that does not go well with them. In India, during Emergency, several movies and literary pieces were subjected to government’s censorship. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is in news again for refusing a certificate for the movie Udta Punjab.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Interestingly, the CBFC after viewing the movie did not issue a certificate. When the certificate is denied, the Board has to issue a letter laying down the reasons for such refusal. It is a common administrative practice to give reasons when a right is curtailed. <br />However, the “Board with a mission” (as given on its website) “to make the certification process transparent and responsible” did not give a letter of refusal to the producers of Udta Punjab.<br /><br />The letter of refusal is important because, in the absence of such letter, the movie producer will be unable to appeal to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). Hence, the team of Udta Punjab approached the Bombay High Court through a writ. Later, CBFC issued a letter to the producers stating that it would issue an A certificate subject to 13 cuts. The movie team expected an A certificate (restricted to adult audience), but without any cuts.<br /><br />The movie deals with the problem of drugs in Punjab. The CBFC has recommended that reference Punjab and other places within Punjab should be deleted. The certificate is so silly, that it has asked for changing the name of a dog named “Jacky Chain”! It has also asked to delete the words ‘election’, ‘MLA’ and ‘party worker’ in certain scenes. <br /><br />CBFC Chief Pahlaj Nihalani has said that the movie defames Punjab whereas the law on defamation is clear that a state cannot be defamed. The moves by the CBFC show that it is politically motivated keeping in mind the elections in Punjab early next year. <br /><br />The recent statements of CBFC chief that he is “proud to be a Modi chamcha” are unbecoming of a person holding a responsible post.<br /><br />Article 19(1)(a) in our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence points out that different standards have been applied for different mediums of speech and expression. For example, literary works do not need permission by the government before getting published. Whereas, a movie has to be certified by the CBFC before going for public exhibition. <br /><br />Pre-censorship<br /><br />This is known as “prior restraint” or “pre-censorship”. In the case of K A Abbas v Union of India (1970), the petitioner challenged the “pre-censorship” requirement under Cinematograph Act 1952, but the Supreme Court held that “the motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art” and hence requires pre-censorship.<br /><br />However, the Supreme Court in the same case also upheld the freedom of speech of the creative people in the following words: “the standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. <br /><br />We must not look upon such human relationships as banned in toto and forever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society.”<br /><br />A lot of people have pointed fingers at the present CBFC chief. But the bigger problem lies with the law. Persons may change, but they will have to implement the same law – The Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Act gives wide-ranging powers to the Board to certify the movies arbitrarily or even deny a certificate. There is a need to eliminate the arbitrariness in the Cinematograph Act.<br /><br />The Shyam Benegal Committee submitted its report to the government on April 26, 2016 recommending changes to the CBFC and the Cinematograph Act. The Committee has recommended that the CBFC’s scope “should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity.” <br /><br />The Committee has also recommended that, “the artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films.” <br /><br />Many Bollywood personalities have come openly in support of free speech. It is the right time for the film makers across the country to unite and stand for their freedom of artistic expression.<br /><em><br />(The writer is a researcher at the Department of Studies in Law, University of Mysore)</em><br /></p>
<p>Governments since the times of monarchs have tried to curb the freedom of speech and artistic expression that does not go well with them. In India, during Emergency, several movies and literary pieces were subjected to government’s censorship. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is in news again for refusing a certificate for the movie Udta Punjab.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Interestingly, the CBFC after viewing the movie did not issue a certificate. When the certificate is denied, the Board has to issue a letter laying down the reasons for such refusal. It is a common administrative practice to give reasons when a right is curtailed. <br />However, the “Board with a mission” (as given on its website) “to make the certification process transparent and responsible” did not give a letter of refusal to the producers of Udta Punjab.<br /><br />The letter of refusal is important because, in the absence of such letter, the movie producer will be unable to appeal to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). Hence, the team of Udta Punjab approached the Bombay High Court through a writ. Later, CBFC issued a letter to the producers stating that it would issue an A certificate subject to 13 cuts. The movie team expected an A certificate (restricted to adult audience), but without any cuts.<br /><br />The movie deals with the problem of drugs in Punjab. The CBFC has recommended that reference Punjab and other places within Punjab should be deleted. The certificate is so silly, that it has asked for changing the name of a dog named “Jacky Chain”! It has also asked to delete the words ‘election’, ‘MLA’ and ‘party worker’ in certain scenes. <br /><br />CBFC Chief Pahlaj Nihalani has said that the movie defames Punjab whereas the law on defamation is clear that a state cannot be defamed. The moves by the CBFC show that it is politically motivated keeping in mind the elections in Punjab early next year. <br /><br />The recent statements of CBFC chief that he is “proud to be a Modi chamcha” are unbecoming of a person holding a responsible post.<br /><br />Article 19(1)(a) in our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence points out that different standards have been applied for different mediums of speech and expression. For example, literary works do not need permission by the government before getting published. Whereas, a movie has to be certified by the CBFC before going for public exhibition. <br /><br />Pre-censorship<br /><br />This is known as “prior restraint” or “pre-censorship”. In the case of K A Abbas v Union of India (1970), the petitioner challenged the “pre-censorship” requirement under Cinematograph Act 1952, but the Supreme Court held that “the motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art” and hence requires pre-censorship.<br /><br />However, the Supreme Court in the same case also upheld the freedom of speech of the creative people in the following words: “the standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. <br /><br />We must not look upon such human relationships as banned in toto and forever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society.”<br /><br />A lot of people have pointed fingers at the present CBFC chief. But the bigger problem lies with the law. Persons may change, but they will have to implement the same law – The Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Act gives wide-ranging powers to the Board to certify the movies arbitrarily or even deny a certificate. There is a need to eliminate the arbitrariness in the Cinematograph Act.<br /><br />The Shyam Benegal Committee submitted its report to the government on April 26, 2016 recommending changes to the CBFC and the Cinematograph Act. The Committee has recommended that the CBFC’s scope “should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity.” <br /><br />The Committee has also recommended that, “the artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films.” <br /><br />Many Bollywood personalities have come openly in support of free speech. It is the right time for the film makers across the country to unite and stand for their freedom of artistic expression.<br /><em><br />(The writer is a researcher at the Department of Studies in Law, University of Mysore)</em><br /></p>
