 "Here's why CBFC is known as the censor board")
The Bombay High Court’s observations on Friday criticising the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) recent approach towards certification of films may have come as welcome news for many but technically the censor board has authority to not only seek ‘modifications’ but also deny certification to a particular movie, blocking its commercial release.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Phantom Films, producer of Udta Punjab, against the CBFC’s order to remove numerous scenes of the movie on grounds of public morality and excessive use of profanities. In court, the CBFC also raised apprehensions over possible damage to the reputation of the state of Punjab.
Negating the arguments, the court highlighted the right of the public to view material of its choice. The bench asked the CBFC if the word ‘censor’ was anywhere to be found in their governing statute, The Cinematograph Act 1952 (the Act).
While the preamble of the Act talks about only certification of films, the open-ended drafting of the legislation, a post-independence relic of the colonial era, much like the Dramatic Performances Act 1876 and erstwhile Cinematograph Act 1918, has allowed the CBFC to assume its censorial authority.
Section 4 of the Act provides the sanctioning mechanism for films. It allows the CBFC to direct an applicant to carry out “excisions” or “modifications” as it thinks necessary, before a film may be certified.
Section 5B allows the CBFC to deny certification of a film, if it is defamatory in nature or against “decency” and “morality”.
While the high court is slated to pass necessary orders in the case of Udta Punjab on June 13, four days before it’s intended release, a permanent solution may lie only in review of the Cinematograph Act 1952.
The current controversy also adds perspective to the recent Shyam Benegal Committee report on cinematography laws. In most developed countries, organisations like CBFC only certify films for different audiences and have no authority to either edit or block a movie.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Phantom Films, producer of Udta Punjab, against the CBFC’s order to remove numerous scenes of the movie on grounds of public morality and excessive use of profanities. In court, the CBFC also raised apprehensions over possible damage to the reputation of the state of Punjab.
Negating the arguments, the court highlighted the right of the public to view material of its choice. The bench asked the CBFC if the word ‘censor’ was anywhere to be found in their governing statute, The Cinematograph Act 1952 (the Act).
While the preamble of the Act talks about only certification of films, the open-ended drafting of the legislation, a post-independence relic of the colonial era, much like the Dramatic Performances Act 1876 and erstwhile Cinematograph Act 1918, has allowed the CBFC to assume its censorial authority.
Section 4 of the Act provides the sanctioning mechanism for films. It allows the CBFC to direct an applicant to carry out “excisions” or “modifications” as it thinks necessary, before a film may be certified.
Section 5B allows the CBFC to deny certification of a film, if it is defamatory in nature or against “decency” and “morality”.
While the high court is slated to pass necessary orders in the case of Udta Punjab on June 13, four days before it’s intended release, a permanent solution may lie only in review of the Cinematograph Act 1952.
The current controversy also adds perspective to the recent Shyam Benegal Committee report on cinematography laws. In most developed countries, organisations like CBFC only certify films for different audiences and have no authority to either edit or block a movie.