Don’t miss the latest developments in business and finance.

FCAT passing 'An Insignificant Man' a bittersweet victory: Dir

Image
Press Trust of India Mumbai
Last Updated : Aug 21 2017 | 5:02 PM IST
The FCAT has ordered the censor board to grant a U/A certificate to "An Insignificant Man", a documentary on the making of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The directors, Khushboo Ranka and Vinay Shukla decided to move to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) after facing issues at the examining and revising committees of the board.
The directors were apparently asked to bring NoCs (No Objection Certificates) from political leaders mentioned in the story.
"This is a bittersweet victory for us. While we have got the judgement in our favour, it has taken a long time, lot of efforts and resources. I think Mr (Pahlaj) Nihalani's tenure was controversial due to the kind of decisions he made," Ranka told PTI.
The filmmakers wanted the film to release in February this year, something that could not be possible due to certification issues with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The documentary has been granted a go-ahead just days after the appointment of adman-lyricist Prasoon Joshi as the new chairman of the board.

More From This Section

Asked whether Nihalani's ouster was a good sign, the director said, "Hopefully, this board will be better and more progressive. But it remains to be seen. It is too early to say anything."
The FCAT held that the requirement of seeking an NoC from political personages and others as a pre-condition for certification of the documentary is wholly unsustainable and not permissible by law, Ranka said.
She said former CBFC chairman was overreaching when he gave conservative judgements that had no legal basis or were not based on the Cinematography Act.
"The FCAT has overturned a lot of judgements of the CBFC while it was headed by Pahlaj Nihalani... It says a lot."
When asked whether filmmakers were using the board's decision for publicity, as Nihalani often claimed, Ranka said the same can be applied to him.
"He used to make arbitrary cuts in films so that he could be in news. Whatever decisions he made were overturned by a higher legal body, which means he was propagating arbitrary things. If he didn't want to be in the news, he should have stuck to the rulebook.

Also Read

First Published: Aug 21 2017 | 5:02 PM IST

Next Story