What seems fair to one might be unfair to someone else. Is there a solid parameter to test the fairness of art? Especially when we look into cinema, every film is subject to various criticisms. In India, almost a thousand films are released in a year. The Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) thoroughly scrutinises these films. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting governs CBFC.
It regulates the films’ contents per the provisions under the Cinematograph Act 1952 and The Cinematographic (Certification) Rules, 1983. The main focus of the CBFC is to ensure that rational, educational and healthy entertainment content reaches the audience. The cultural and socioeconomic sensitivities are to be balanced with creative freedom by CBFC. The procedure entails a subjective assessment of the material, occasionally sparking discussions and disagreements amongst the film-makers and critics. Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act deals with the principles to be followed while certifying films. The parameters mentioned in Section 5B are that the films shall be scrutinized as anything against the interests of the sovereignty, integrity, security of the country and its foreign relations, public order, decency or morality, defamation or contempt of court. The Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee holds high significance as it mentions that the CBFC is supposed to be a certification authority and should not censor films unreasonably.
Any appeal in this regard was addressed to the FCAT- Film Certification Appellate Tribunal u/s 5D of the Cinematograph Act. FCATs were recently abolished because the tribunals were not functioning at their peak, and the administration highly relied on a nodal officer. Now, the appellate authority is the respective state High Courts. It was stated by the Bombay High Court in Hiten Dhirajlal Metha v. Bhansali Production, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 372, that once the CBFC has granted a certificate to a movie, then there should not be any obstruction to release the film to the public.
The Court also pointed out that there was no violation of any fundamental rights for which the Court could interfere. The film fraternity is not entirely happy about the abolishment of FCAT because of the strict and restricted inference by the Courts. Due to procedural complexities, once the case goes to court, there might be delays in the judgment, which can impact the film’s outcome.
Film-makers who previously depended on the FCAT to accelerate the certification procedure are now confronted with the possibility of protracted legal disputes and setbacks in releasing their pictures. The lack of an autonomous appellate entity has the potential to intensify administrative obstacles and impede the manifestation of artistic creativity. The abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal in India signifies a noteworthy advancement in the ongoing scholarly conversation surrounding censorship, artistic autonomy, and administrative oversight within the film industry. The supporters perceive it as a measure to simplify the certification procedure, while those against it express legitimate apprehensions over the weakening of oversight and the possibility of censorship. As India grapples with these intricate dynamics, achieving a harmonious equilibrium between regulatory supervision and the safeguarding of constitutional rights is crucial, thereby fostering the flourishing of artistic expression within a dynamic and democratic society.
Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha,
B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal Consultant
For Origin Law Labs
