Censorship of cinema: India
(→2019, SC: States can’t curb films cleared by CBFC) |
(→1960s-2017) |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
=B: YEAR-WISE TRENDS= | =B: YEAR-WISE TRENDS= | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =Evolution: the early years= | ||
| + | [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-film-makers-fear-a-a-super-censor-is-in-the-works/articleshow/83985742.cms Sunil Nair / Why filmmakers fear a ‘Super Censor’ is in the works/ ''The Times of India'' / TNN/ Jul 1, 2021] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | In the past, the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Headquartered out of Mumbai with offices in most major film-producing centres, it was led by career bureaucrats in the first three decades post-Independence. The | ||
| + | motto — “healthy entertainment, recreation and education for the public” — articulated a conservative, patriarchal attitude, implying that the viewer needed to be steered in the right direction. He or she had to be shielded from excessive doses of hard reality or alternative views of everyday life, mores, sex and violence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | CBFC thus appropriated the role of a censor rather than a certifying body, but saved many filmmakers the trouble of explaining themselves to angry moralists. | ||
| + | |||
| + | An established figure in the industry describes it as a relationship that offered security but trampled on his freedoms. “Filmmakers don’t like censorship. But we realise that there has to be an external body…” | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Censor Board, for instance, knows the acceptable length of a sex scene or the sort of background graffiti that will offend the establishment. It was well known | ||
| + | director Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s appointment as censor chief which first signalled an upending of this arrangement. His term came during the emergence of parallel | ||
| + | cinema and appeared to herald a change. Following in his footsteps, another legendary director, Vijay Anand, said he would introduce an ‘X’ rating that would allow | ||
| + | films to be screened with fewer cuts than those imposed in the ‘A’ category. His tenure was brief, but the message hit home—the Indian viewer wanted to be treated | ||
| + | as a grown-up. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As the market matured, so did the Censor Board. Over the years, amendments in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 have allowed more categories of certification, | ||
| + | broadened the composition of board members and paved the way for an independent Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal which offered redressal if reviewers | ||
| + | gratuitously sought cuts. Alongside, two committees under Justice Mukul Mudgal and Shyam Benegal have cautioned the Board against acting as moral custodians. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Benegal report submitted in 2016 even proposed that the power of excisions and modifications to a film that is vested with the CBFC be taken away so that it | ||
| + | would function purely as a certification body. Introduce more categories of ratings, it said, including UA7+, UA10+, UA13+, UA16+ and an ‘Adult With Caution’ to | ||
| + | indicate higher levels of violence or sex. The CBFC is here to tell us what to expect from a film, was the stand it took. The only reason to reject a film would be if it | ||
| + | contravened the law and was unfit for public viewing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks to Supreme Court judgments which define a degree of autonomy, the institution must now find a balance between preserving creative liberty and helping | ||
| + | audiences make an informed decision. Recently….Government has dissolved the appellate tribunal and wants to assume | ||
| + | powers to enjoin the Board to re-certify a film if it receives objections against it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | the SC had said government has no right | ||
| + | to seek re-censorship if a film’s been cleared by the CBFC. | ||
| + | |||
=1960s-2017= | =1960s-2017= | ||
| Line 90: | Line 125: | ||
The three-judge bench said, “The courts are to be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation and should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, a play, aplaylet, a bookon philosophy, or any kind of thought that is expressed on celluloid or theatre etc.” | The three-judge bench said, “The courts are to be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation and should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, a play, aplaylet, a bookon philosophy, or any kind of thought that is expressed on celluloid or theatre etc.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Cinema-TV-Pop|C | ||
| + | CENSORSHIP OF CINEMA: INDIA]] | ||
| + | [[Category:India|C | ||
| + | CENSORSHIP OF CINEMA: INDIA]] | ||
=1971-2015= | =1971-2015= | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 1 July 2021
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
A: The issues
Pocso Act offences
HC: Why were Pocso Act offences not censored?
March 21, 2017: The Times of India
POCSO= Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
Madras HC summons censors after girl claims films influenced her to elope
A minor girl's claim that she hit upon the idea of eloping with her boyfriend after watching some “impressive scenes“ in films has earned the Madras high court's wrath for the entire film censor board. The high court, holding poorly censored films responsible for obscenity in cinema and saying that this in turn had adverse effects on the youth, has summoned the `heads of the censor boards' to be present before it on March 27. “They are directed to appear before court on March 27 for the purpose of explaining to the court as to why necessary action should not be taken against the censor board who are responsible for exhibiting such kind of cinemas involving Pocso Act offences,“ said a division bench of Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anita Sumanth.
States and film censorship
2019, SC: States can’t curb films cleared by CBFC
March 26, 2019: The Times of India
Taking exception to the West Bengal police objecting to public screening of satirical film ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’ and seeking its private screening for a few senior officials despite it being cleared by the Censor Board, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the state authorities to ensure smooth release of the film.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta said the state government is duty-bound to protect the fundamental right to free speech and expression of the film’s producer and director. It directed the joint commissioner of police to withdraw the communication in which private screening of the film was sought on the ground that “contents of the film may hurt public sentiments and may lead to political law and order issues”.
“We are of the view that the joint commissioner of police acted beyond the scope of his legitimate authority in directing the producer to arrange for a private screening. The state of West Bengal is duty-bound, once the film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to take necessary measures to protect the fundamental right to free speech and expression of the producer and the director and, for that matter, of the viewers to see the film unrestrained by extra-constitutional restraints,” the bench said.
The court said the state authorities cannot create hurdles in public screening of films after they are certified by CBFC. “We are a free society and this cannot be done,” the court said.
SC fines Bengal govt ₹20L for ‘blocking’ film
AmitAnand Choudhary, April 12, 2019: The Times of India
Expressing concern over growing intolerance to dissent and curbing of artistic freedom, the Supreme Court on Thursday said the state is constitutionally bound to protect people’s freedom and slapped a fine of Rs 20 lakh on the West Bengal government for blocking release of satirical film ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta said artistes are entitled to the fullest liberty and freedom to critique and criticise, and government agencies cannot put restrictions on artistic freedom to express their views.
“The Constitution does not permit those in authority to crush the freedom of others to believe, think and express. The ability to communicate ideas is a legitimate area of human endeavour and is not controlled by the acceptability of the views to those to whom they are addressed...” wrote Justice Chandrachud in the judgment.
‘Bengal police misused power by not allowing film screening’
When the ability to portray art in any form is subject to extra-constitutional authority, there is a grave danger that fundamental human freedoms will be imperilled by a cloud of opacity and arbitrary state behaviour,” said Justice Chandrachud who wrote the judgment and fined the Bengal government of Rs 20 lakh for blocking the release of satirical film ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’.
The court said the West Bengal police had misused its powers by obstructing public screening of the film which was cleared by the censor board and added that it attempted “to silence speech, suborn views critical of prevailing cultures and threaten law-abiding citizens into submission”. The court held that police cannot claim to be self-appointed guardians of public morality and directed the state to compensate the filmmakers for the losses.
The court said governments are duty-bound to create and maintain conditions for people to enjoy their freedom. “In the space reserved for free exercise of speech and expression, the state cannot look askance when organised interests threaten the existence of freedom ... The instruments of the state must be utilised to effectuate the exercise of freedom,” it said.
When the ability to portray art is subject to extraconstitutional authority, there is a grave danger that fundamental human freedoms will be imperilled by a cloud of opacity and arbitrary state behaviour… Contemporary events reveal growing intolerance
– Justice D Y Chandrachud
B: YEAR-WISE TRENDS
Evolution: the early years
In the past, the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Headquartered out of Mumbai with offices in most major film-producing centres, it was led by career bureaucrats in the first three decades post-Independence. The
motto — “healthy entertainment, recreation and education for the public” — articulated a conservative, patriarchal attitude, implying that the viewer needed to be steered in the right direction. He or she had to be shielded from excessive doses of hard reality or alternative views of everyday life, mores, sex and violence.
CBFC thus appropriated the role of a censor rather than a certifying body, but saved many filmmakers the trouble of explaining themselves to angry moralists.
An established figure in the industry describes it as a relationship that offered security but trampled on his freedoms. “Filmmakers don’t like censorship. But we realise that there has to be an external body…”
The Censor Board, for instance, knows the acceptable length of a sex scene or the sort of background graffiti that will offend the establishment. It was well known director Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s appointment as censor chief which first signalled an upending of this arrangement. His term came during the emergence of parallel cinema and appeared to herald a change. Following in his footsteps, another legendary director, Vijay Anand, said he would introduce an ‘X’ rating that would allow films to be screened with fewer cuts than those imposed in the ‘A’ category. His tenure was brief, but the message hit home—the Indian viewer wanted to be treated as a grown-up.
As the market matured, so did the Censor Board. Over the years, amendments in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 have allowed more categories of certification, broadened the composition of board members and paved the way for an independent Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal which offered redressal if reviewers gratuitously sought cuts. Alongside, two committees under Justice Mukul Mudgal and Shyam Benegal have cautioned the Board against acting as moral custodians.
The Benegal report submitted in 2016 even proposed that the power of excisions and modifications to a film that is vested with the CBFC be taken away so that it would function purely as a certification body. Introduce more categories of ratings, it said, including UA7+, UA10+, UA13+, UA16+ and an ‘Adult With Caution’ to indicate higher levels of violence or sex. The CBFC is here to tell us what to expect from a film, was the stand it took. The only reason to reject a film would be if it contravened the law and was unfit for public viewing.
Thanks to Supreme Court judgments which define a degree of autonomy, the institution must now find a balance between preserving creative liberty and helping audiences make an informed decision. Recently….Government has dissolved the appellate tribunal and wants to assume powers to enjoin the Board to re-certify a film if it receives objections against it.
the SC had said government has no right to seek re-censorship if a film’s been cleared by the CBFC.
1960s-2017
Historically, a tolerant India witnessed seamless confluenceof ideas, values, cultures and religions. Today, the intelligentsia believes that growing intolerance has impeded civilisational growth by endangering free speech. Repeated featuring of films in Supreme Court judgments would tell us a very different story — a story of continuous intolerance towards films.
From government to fringe elements, we have never been tolerant or respected right to free speech when it came to films portraying the personal lives of famous and notorious personalities.
Rewind tothe1960s. K A Abbas had moved the SC to challenge the Centre’s demand for cuts in his film ‘A Tale of Four Cities’ highlighting the chasm in the lives of the rich and the poor in four metropolises, which includedthelifeofthose operating in redlight areas, for a ‘U’ certificate.
The SC’s judgment [1970 (2) SCC 780] reflects the1960s mindset. It upheld censorship and said, “Motion pictures must be regarded differently from other forms of speech and expression. A person reading a book or other writing or hearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not as deeply stirred as by seeing a motion picture. Therefore, treatment of the latter on a different footing is also a valid classification.”
In 1975, Amrit Nahata’s film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ boldly portrayed the political doings of Indira Gandhi and her petulant political heir, Sanjay Gandhi. CBFC refused certification. Nahata moved the SC. The SC judges wanted to see the film before deciding the petition. What Karni Sena is threatening todowith ‘Padmavati’ now was done by Sanjay Gandhi and then I&B minister VC Shukla in 1975. All printsof the film were brought to Delhi from Bombay, taken to the Maruti factory in Gurgaon and burnt. The SC was toldthefilm prints were misplaced and could notbeshown tothejudges. This brazenness shocked the SC but itcouldsend Sanjay Gandhitojailfor a monthonly after Indira Gandhi was defeated in the elections.
The famousRaj Kapoor too was not spared. He faced prosecution for ‘Satyam Shivam Sundaram’ along withthe producer, actors and others connected to the movie as a complaint accused them of projecting sexuality, moral depravity and eroding public decency. The SC quashed the prosecution [1980 (1) SCC 43] and gave a thumbs up to artistic freedom of expression.
Tamil film ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’ became the centre of controversy for showcasing politicisation of reservation for backward classes and the flip side of it — upper caste youthobtaining falsecastecertificates to get employment. It was deniedcertification by the CBFC. Dealing with this film, the SC in S Rangarajan vs P Jagjivan Ram [1989(2) SCC 574] appeared to have come of age and ruled, “The standard to be applied by the (censor) board or courts for judging a film should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man.
“We, however, wishto add a word more. The censor board should exercise considerable circumspection on movies affecting the morality or decency of our people and cultural heritage of the country. Moral values in particular, should not be allowed to be sacrificed in the guiseof social change or cultural assimilation… We do not, however, mean that the censors should have an orthodox or conservative outlook. Far from it, they must be responsive to social change and they must go with the current climate. All we wish to state is that the censors may display more sensitivity to movies which will have a markedly deleterious effect to lower the moral standards of those who see it.” In between, there were
numerous films, including ‘Bandit Queen’, ‘Kuttrapathirikai’ (on Rajiv Gandhi assassination), ‘Santhana Kadu’ (on Veerappan), ‘BlackFriday’ and ‘Udta Punjab’, which facedtheir share of controversy, some engineered and some spontaneous.
Many films were based on lifestoriesof famous and notorious personalities. For such autobiographical films, the SC and HCs had put a caveat — they can be based on information available in public records and field information but cannot depict private lives as it would violate right to privacy of those personalities or their relatives.
Buton November 16, the SC while refusing to interfere with the release of ‘An Insignificant Man’, based on Arvind Kejriwal’s life, struck a nailon thehead of intolerance towards artistic freedom of expression. “An artist has his own freedom to express himself in a manner which is not prohibited in law and such prohibitions are not read by implication to crucify the rights of expressive mind. Human history recordsthat there are many authors who express their thoughts according to the choice of their words, phrases, expressions and also create characters who may look absolutely different than an ordinary man would conceive of. A thought provoking film should never mean that it has tobedidacticor in any way puritanical. It can be expressive and provoking the conscious or the sub-conscious thoughtsof the viewer. Ifthere has to be any limitation, that has to be as per the prescription in law,” CJI Dipak Misra said while dictating the order in open court.
The three-judge bench said, “The courts are to be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation and should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, a play, aplaylet, a bookon philosophy, or any kind of thought that is expressed on celluloid or theatre etc.”
1971-2015
From: Narinder Saini, Suhani Singh, December 14, 2015: India Today
See graphic:
Prime cuts from some famous movies- 1971- 2015
1995-2016
Suhani Singh , Long history of protest “India Today” 4/12/2017
Udta Punjab (2016) The film's depiction of Punjabi men being addicted to drugs led to protests by the Shiv Sena.
PK (2014) Hindu groups considered it blasphemy against Hindu gods and gurus.
Goliyon Ki Raasleela: Ram-Leela (2013) The title apparently hurt Hindu sentiments as the name was based on Hindu mythology. An FIR was filed against Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh for the same.
Viswaroopam (2013) The Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagham claimed the Kamal Haassan film represented the community as a group of terrorists. Wanted a ban.
Kadal (2013) Protests from Christian groups. The Indian Christian Democratic Party wanted some scenes deleted, claimed it was offensive to Christians.
Aarakshan (2011) The film focused on the caste-based reservation system in India. Was banned in UP, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh initially. Finally, the Supreme Court had to intervene.
My Name is Khan (2010) Was controversial well ahead of its release after lead actor Shahrukh Khan's offhand comment about Pakistani cricket players not playing in the IPL. Resulted in attacks on cinemas by the Shiv Sena.
Kurbaan (2009) Kareena Kapoor's bare back in the posters apparently hurt sentiments.
Jodhaa Akbar (2008) The Karni Sena wanted the film banned in Rajasthan. Typically, none of them had seen the movie. Their argument: Jodhabai was the daughter of Motaraja Udai Singh of Marwar and was married to Jehangir,Akbar's son. Later claimed they would not have objected if the film had been called 'Akbar-Harku Bai' or 'Salim-Jodha' since these names have historical credence.
Firaaq (2008) Controversial since it was set in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots.
Parzania (2007) Again, portrayed families caught in the Gujarat riots.
Water (2006) Dealt with issue of widows in Varanasi. Hindu nationalist groups considered it disrespectful and an attack on Hindu culture and religion.
Jo Bole So Nihaal (2005) Protests by Sikh groups over the title.
Fire (1996) Discussed the taboo issue of lesbianism. The Shiv Sena was not amused.
Bombay (1995) Set during the 1992-93 riots, Mani Ratnam had to show the film to Shiv Sena boss, the late Bal Thackeray, and agree to his cuts to ensure a smooth release.
2001-2011: 256 films banned
256 films banned by Censor Board in last decade By NewsDesk • DearCinema February 9, 2013
Between 2001 and 2011, a total 256 films have been denied certification by the Central Board of Film Certification, as per the information obtained by Lucknow based RTI (Right to Information) activists Amitabh and Nutan Thakur.
The maximum number of films denied certification in one year was 59 in 2006, followed by 33 films in 2002 and 31 in 2004. Only 9 films were denied certification in 2010.
In 2001 all the 19 films denied certificate were English films.
A maximum number of 78 Hindi films have been banned followed by 52 English films. Among South Indian films; 51 Tamil, 33 Kannada, 15 Telugu and 14 Malayalam films have been denied certification in this period while 5 Marathi films have been denied certificate.
Only one Bengali film (2011- Kaal Aaj Kaal) and 1 Gujarati film (2010- Hun Re Vijogan Tara Nam Ni) was banned during this entire period while 2 Bhojpuri (Garda Garda Ho jaaye, Mumbai Bam Visfot Kand) and 2 Haryanavi films (Jija Teen Taang Ka, Padosan Thanedar) in 2006 were also denied certificates.
Most of these films had sexually implicit material. They include films like Frivolous Lola (2001), Adamkhor Hasina, Qatil Shikari, Khooni Raat (2002), Aalingnam (Malayalam- 2002), Biwi Tumhari Bacche Hamare (2003), Yoga Teacher, Divya Teacher (Tamil- 2003), Aag Hai Ye badan (Hindi- 2004), Bhookh, Jo Andar Fit woh baahar bhi Hit (2005), Maa Ninello Naanalle (Kannada), Preethiya, Rambha (Kannada-2006), Husn Bewafa, Sanam Harjai (Hindi) 2006, Model (Kannada)- 2007, Mumbai Aamchich (Marathi- 2007), Master Eke Master (Marathi- 2008), Maadosha (kannada- 2008), Bedherencha Bayangaram (Telugu- 2008), Back to Honeymoon (Hindi- 2009), Thee, Naalai Namade(Tamil- 2009), Paribhavam (Malayalam), Hawaa, Mestru (kannada- 2009), Deva Leelai (Tamil), Panchavati (Kannada), Yaar, Kattupuli, Itumbu (Tamil) etc.
A brief history
The Times of India, Jun 10, 2016
Within the Walkeshwar headquarters of the Central Board of Film Certification blessed with a deceptively soothing view of the Girgaum Chowpatty oceanfront. Deceptive because bolts of thunder and lightning have struck the headquarters, especially during the Emergency era of the mid-1970, and are currently exacerbating the damage done already.
In the course of four decades, 16 chairpersons have further warmed the hot seat and exited most often unceremoniously. Not one of them could quite escape brickbats and assorted calumny. Pahlaj Nihalani's story, however, has been close to a tragedy. Ensconced in the seat since January last year, the former filmmaker has been the most unique of them all, a Nero fiddling away while Bollywood burns. Normally, honorary appointees of the central government require the goahead from their individual ministries before doling out interviews.
Apparently, that stricture doesn't exist any more, since Nihalani has become the dada of dial-a-brain-boggling quote. By comparison the most dictatorial of the former chairpersons, today strike me as new-born lambs. Take the mildmannered Virendra Vyas, a bureaucrat to the core but redeemed by his congeniality, and openness to discourse. He would tremble on being interrogated. If he served tea, he would believe it or not, joke, "I hope the tea is not as weak as my answers." Next: K L Khandapur, and N S Thapa, both documentary filmmakers from the Films Division, were shunted to the Censor Board, as the chief and his next-in-charge respectively. Khandpur was grim and inscrutable, Thapa an outspoken warrior. If the censor file of the cuts imposed in Sholay went missing from the office, he sensed foul play. V C Shukla, the I & B Minister then was going beyond limits. Thapa leaked the story to The Times of India, emphasising, "Quote me if you want to, I don't care."
None of the appointees before and after Khandpur and Thapa could leave their imprint on the censorship policy. The liberal-minded Hrishikesh Mukherjee attempted to but quit within 18 months, citing health reasons. Politically correct, he didn't place his dismay on record though.
Indeed Leela Samson, Bharatanatyam exponent, is the only chairperson who has categorically told the I & B ministry where to get off. When controversy erupted over the sudden clearance of Messenger of God, Samson assented to her first dialogue for the press, pointing out the "interference, coercion and corruption of panel members and officers of the organisation who are appointed by the ministry."
Before that, around the early '90s, B P Singhal - former director-general of the UP police, Rajya Sabha MP and often described as 'the pillar of Hindutva' — couldn't cut through the thickets of censorship codes (which are still hopelessly arbitrary). At meetings with the panels, he would behave as if he had landed at the wrong party.
Either someone up their in the celestial heavens or in the ministry, had a Eureka moment. Why not appoint Mumbai's film industrywalas as chairpersons? Of them, Asha Parekh shudders, "Oh my god, at least three filmmakers made my life miserable. I promise to tell all in my autobiography." Vijay Anand lasted less than a year, shocking the powersthat-were when he suggested licensing triple XXX cinemas to screen porn.
Now, that's a thought. Shakti Samanta, Arvind Trivedi and Anupam Kher went through their tenures. No progress, no dramatic changes. Sharmila Tagore survived in the chair for as many as seven years after which the chairperson-makers developed an itch. Enter Samson, who carried out her duties diligently without being recompensed with so much as a polite thankyou.
The BJP emerged tops at the general elections. And presto, Pahlaj Nihalani was smiling wider than the Worli-Bandra sea link. The once spic-and-span Walkeshwar office is now as dark and dingy as any red-taped government department.
Truly, give me the good old days when a top censor officer would dare to point an accusing finger at a minister for Sholay. Right now, under Nihalani's tutelage film lovers might as well stay at home and cut paper dolls.
Parzania
Other films include The Irreputable Truth about Demons (New Zealand horror film), The Mexican, a 2001 American comedy film directed by Gore Verbinski and starring Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts and Rahul Dholakia directed Parzania (English, partly Gujarati- 2005), based on Gujarat riots.
’CBFC ’s role is to certify, not censor’: Bombay HC, 2016
The Times of India, Jun 11 2016
Shibu Thomas
The Bombay high court reminded the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that it was empowered to primarily certify films, even as the producers of `Udta Punjab' agreed to cut a scene and add a disclaimer. “Do you find the word `censor' anywhere in the law?“ asked Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, pointing out that the term `censor board' was coined by the media. “Your power is to certify films for screening. The public does not require censoring and let them decide if a movie is good or bad. If you do not want to see something on TV one uses the remote. That remote you should give to the public so that they can decide whether to switch off or not watch something, on TV or films.“ The judges added, “Has the CBFC discharged its functions from 1952 with utmost care? The board and the public must share the blame (for the kind of movies that are made).“ The court has reserved its order on the challenge to the cuts ordered by the CBFC and is likely to deliver its verdict on June 13.
The Times of India
The HC told the CBFC the film industry was not made of glass that one needs to “handle with care“ and remarked that all this had benefited the film.“The film has received weightage and undue publicity . The filmmakers have saved all the promotional expenses as this has (ensured) enough publicity,“ the judges said.
Anurag Kashyap's Phan tom Films, one of the producers of the movie, agreed to cut out a scene in which the lead actor Shahid Kapoor urinates into the audience during a rock concert after the HC insisted that the entire scene had to go. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam, counsel for the filmmakers, also agreed to add the disclaimer that “neither the film maker, nor the actors support the use of expletives and abusive language by any section of the society“. The producers said that they were not agreeable to any more cuts in scenes or the abusive words as they were integral to the film about the drug menace in Punjab.
Advocate Advait Sethna, counsel for CBFC, said that the board would press for all the 13 cuts to be maintained. “The film is defamatory to Punjab and its people. The use of abusive language is harmful to society. Even little children are singing the song which has the words chitaave (white powder) and h*##mi,“ said Sethna. At this, advocate Kadam pointed out that the CBFC had cleared the song without any cuts and a UA certification.
The CBFC's revising committee had recommended cuts in 13 categories, including abusive words in songs and dialogue, scene of Shahid Kapoor urinating, a scene of a man scratching his side, scenes of people injecting drugs and changing the name of a dog, Jackie Chain. The CBFC had also wanted all references to Punjab and other cities deleted from the movie as well as references to `MLA ', `Party' worker, and `election' removed.
The court questioned the CBFC on the cuts. “No one likes an abusive person to sit next to them. Similarly , if a film is full of only abuses, will the audience sit through it? Creative minds will realise their folly that films do not run because of abusive language. They think in the multiplexes everything will work. They will learn from their mistakes. Why are you (CBFC) worried?“ the court queried. It said that the post-80s generation was different from the older generations. “This attitude is not going to work. The generations to come are not going to be impressed. We want creative people and the film industry to survive. Ultimately it is content, not the volume of films that is produced that is important and lasting.“
2008, 2009: Telugu, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada films
Tollywood's penchant for sleaze gets under censor's skin
Ch Sushil Rao, TNN | May 21, 2011, 12.27am IST
HYDERABAD: It's not there in the hall of fame, look for it in the hall of shame and Tollywood is there occupying the centrestage.
The Telugu film industry, which boasts of producing the second most number of films in the country, has earned the dubious distinction of being on the top in trying to peddle obscenity, vulgarity and violence in films.
The scissors of the censors, however, have often cut the dreams of filmmakers short by insisting on deleting all objectionable scenes.
In terms of length, for the year 2008 a total of 8,073.68 metres of film had to be cut by filmmakers as the censors found it objectionable. Compare this figure to Bollywood's movies and the length advised to be cut was only 1,825.66 metres.
Similarly, for the year 2009 also (the latest year for which detailed statistics are available), the Telugu film industry showed its ability to outclass other language films. A total of 4,761.20 metres of film had to be cut in the Telugu movies censored at the Hyderabad regional office as against 2,472.63 metres which suffered the censors cut in the Mumbai regional office.
During 2008, as against 286 Telugu films released, 248 Hindi films were released. However, during 2009, while 235 Hindi films were released, 218 Telugu films hit the theatres.
Telugu filmmakers have shown an obsession for obscenity, even if they know it may not get past the censors. "The obscene stuff is shot anyway hoping that the film gets a clearance with all that," says a film analyst. "After we watch the film, we have a sitting with the film producer and the director and advise them about the cuts to be made. They do give their point of view, but the CBFC follows strict guidelines in not passing what is objectionable," said CBFC regional officer A Dhanalakshmi.
Take for instance, the movie `Nenu Na Rakshasi' starring Rana Daggubati directed by Puri Jagannath which got released on April 29, 20011. Item bomb Mumaith Khan had to bear the brunt of the censors as they got the scenes in which her body exposure was considered vulgar in a cafe and on a flight. Some 25 feet of film had to be cut for this. The censors insisted that Mumaith Khan's exposure of her cleavage in a close-up shot in a song be deleted. This apart, vulgar words and abuses were got deleted by the censors.
In the movie `Lokame Koththaga' released on April 8, 2011, Jyothi's intimate love scenes with her boyfriend had to be sliced. To give more examples, in the film `Mantra' starring Charmee and directed by Tulasiram, the censors imposed as many as 10 cuts which meant 230ft of film had to be sliced and given an `A' certificate.
`Ala Na Pellanta' released in March this year starring Allari Naresh too suffered censor cuts for unnecessary exposure of the heroine in a bikini at a swimming pool.
It is only getting worse in Tollywood. In a recently released film, a filmmaker went to the extent of incorporating a dialogue which said `One plus one free' referring to a daughter and mother. Shocked censors naturally did not allow it to pass.
The Tamil film industry which encourages buxom beauties had also to suffer the brunt of the censors but this was to an extent of only 3,920.4 metres of length of film in the year 2009. The Kannada film industry was spared with 2,898.79 metres of cuts and Bengali films only 116.59 metres of cuts.
2010: Adults only films
Hindi film-makers get bolder, prefer 'A' rating
Viju B & Bharati Dubey, TNN | Apr 4, 2011, 05.49am IST
MUMBAI: Film-makers have been dishing out more adult-only movies for discerning audiences across the country in the last three years. While there was a decline in the number of movies made in the universal category in the last three years, the corresponding period showed an increase in the number of adult movies in major languages across the country.
Hindi movies topped the list of adult movies, with 61 out of the 215 Hindi movies last year, with an increase of 3% in the last three years. Tamil movies came second, with 50 adult movies out of the 202 movies made last year, an increase of 4% in the last three years.
The vibrant Telugu movie industry was not far behind, with 45 adult movies out of the 181 Telugu movies made last year, an increase of 3% in the last three years.
Though the Bengali film industry produced only 17 adult movies out of the 110 movies last year, there was an 8% increase in the adult movie category in the last three years, according to data from the Central Board of Film Certification ( CBFC).
Film-makers and experts said the censor board's new policy of preferring to give an 'A' certificate rather than cut scenes and increasing maturity of audiences, who are willing to appreciate such movies, are reasons for the increase in the adult content in Indian movies.
Film-maker Sangeeta Datta, who directed Sharmila Tagore in Life Goes On, said that newer and bolder themes, especially dealing with sexuality, are being experimented by film-makers in West Bengal. "'Memories of March is one such bold film. Also, the censor board is asking the film-maker to cut scenes, which is why 'A' certificate films have gone up," Datta said.
RTI activist Chetan Kothari, who filed a query on the issue, said some film-makers insert explicit scenes to make the movie into a commercial hit. Film-maker Mahesh Bhatt said, "The internet has increased the appetite of the audience for adult content. Film-makers are catering to this demand to stay in business."
Film-makers say that they are forced to accept an 'A' certificate so that the film's storyline does not get disrupted. Producer Kumar Mangat accepted an 'A' certificate for Aakrosh, which dealt with the politics of violence and greed after censor board officials suggested.
Film-maker Madhur Bhandarkar, who has been urging the censor board to change the age group category for viewing of films, said he was still waiting for new guidelines from the information & broadcasting ministry, which will introduces a 15+ category.
"It will get me back my audiences. I lost about Rs 7 crore in 'Dil Toh Bachcha Hai' only because of the 'A' certificate and teenagers could not view it.
Bhandarkar's 'Fashion', which tried to explore the seamier side of the Indian fashion industry, was given an 'A' certificate as drinking and love-making scenes were shown. The censor board felt the scenes would have a bad influence on teenagers.
2011-2015: Hindi-Urdu films with censorship problems
Censor board 'cuts' that made headlines
The Times of India<> The Times of India
The Censor Board of India has asked filmmakers to chop out scenes from their movies on several occasions. While most filmmakers comply by the rules without making much noise, there are those who end up creating headlines in some way or the other. The Times of India took a look at some of those...
Action Jackson Despite the fact that Ajay Devgn's Action Jackson has been cleared by the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with a 'UA' certificate, the CBFC has removed one particular word from the film's soundtrack. According to a report on Pinkvilla.com, the word 'temple' has been asked to be removed from Ajay Devgn's monologue in the film. The report also quotes the film's director, Prabhu Dheva as saying that since the change didn't make any difference to the dialogue, they had already replaced the offending word with 'statue.' Prabhu Dheva insists that it was no problem at all.
Badlapur According to a report in Mumbai Mirror, Sriram Raghavan refused to delete certain scenes from Badlapur, and agreed to the 'A' certificate issued by the Censor Board. The film was screened for the censors and they were willing to give it a 'UA' rating, provided that the makers agreed to major cuts recommended by the Examining Committee. "But Sriram categorically told the Board that he's very happy with an 'A' certificate as long as no scenes are cut. This caused some surprise as most filmmakers put up a fight," a source close to the development informed. The scenes asked to be chopped off included a few lovemaking shots and certain portions depicting graphic violence.
Badmashiyaan According to a report in Mumbai Mirror, the film Badmashiyaan, that releases on March 6, has been passed with 12 cuts. A rom-com revolving around a gold-digging con woman, the film was given 12 cuts and cleared with a UA certificate on February 23. Bollywood's patented phrase, 'kutte kaminey' had to be redubbed as 'andha kahin ka' and 'ma ki aankh' with 'ma ki eye.' Several other words like 'tutiya' (mistaken for chu**ya) and 'pichwada' were muted, along with the phrase 'Mard to saare kutte hote hain.' The word 'haramkhor' was deleted. What was even more baffling was that in a scene where the girl goes to file an FIR for molestation, the words 'hum bistri' had to be muted from her dialogue but the same words, when used by the guy, were allowed. Even 'my ass' which was not used in a derogatory manner, was frowned upon. The film's director Amit Khanna agrees that he had to give in as the release date of the film was near,
Chakravyuh Prakash Jha's films are high on politics and social issues and it comes as no surprise that he makes it to our list here. Chakravyuh starring Abhay Deol, Arjun Rampal, Esha Gupta, Manoj Bajpayee and Anjali Patil ran into trouble with the Censor Board as well. As per a report in Times of India, the film ran into trouble with the Censor Board over the song 'Tata, Birla, Ambani aur Bata, sab ne hai desh ko kaata.' The song was sung by Kailash Kher and picturised on Abhay Deol. The Censor Board did not pass the song because members felt it was a personal attack on the country's top industrialists and intended to defame them. Although, Prakash Jha insisted that the names of the industrialists are used to represent a mindset and not target anyone, the Board thought otherwise. The report said that the song was cleared by the Board only after they added a disclaimer.
Dedh Ishqiya Madhuri Dixit, Naseeruddin Shah, Arshad Warsi and Huma Qureshi starrer Dedh Ishqiya also ran into trouble with the Censor Board, however, only post the release. The film was cleared except for a particular scene where Arshad Warsi visits a brothel, which was blurred. However, according to a news report, the scene found its way into the film and members of the Board saw the film without the blurred version at a screening. According to a mid-day report, the producers of the film initially blamed the cinema halls and their bad lighting. As the result, they later accepted their fault. As per the report, a show cause notice was sent to the filmmaker post this incident.
Delhi Belly Aamir Khan's Delhi Belly was another film that courted controversy with the Censor Board. According to a Mumbai Mirror report, 'Delhi Belly' was given an A certificate. However, for its television rights, the film had to face some strict diktats by the Board. As per the Mumbai Mirror report, the Board had apparently agreed to release the film's satellite rights after it made roughly 17 to 18 cuts. Not just that, after this, the Board had apparently asked the filmmaker to make further changes.
Dharam Sankat Mein: According to a report on Mid-day.com, even after cutting off a few scenes from their film, Dharam Sankat Mein, the makers have been asked to beep out certain words for the film to be cleared by the Censor Board. A source from the film unit has been quoted in the report as saying that they had expected a few cuts considering that the subject of the film was a bit sensitive but they were surprised that they had a problem with words such as saala, kambakht and musalmaano which are very commonly used. The source add that they had to agree to beep the words as they wanted to release the film.
Dilliwaali Zaalim Girlfriend According to a report on Bollywoodlife.com, Dilliwaali Zaalim Girlfriend has been given a U/A certificate by the Censor Board after 63 mutes. The muted portions include words like saala and saali. The director of the film, Japinder Kaur, is rather amused by the cuts. She is quoted in the report as saying that if there is no thematic issue, she doesn’t understands the problem in just picking up singular words that are local lingo. She also suggests that to bring about any change in rules, guidelines should be set systematically with time limits and that the Censor should inform that films going into production now should follow new rules; because they have the space to, not the ones that are already completed and have been in working progress in the last 1-2 years.
Fifty Shades Of Grey Hollywood film, Fifty Shades Of Grey's release in India was postponed due to censorship problems. According to a Mumbai Mirror report, Hollywood BDSM drama 50 Shades of Grey's Indian release is in a limbo. The film has been banned in UAE and Malaysia and there's a question mark over its Indian release, the report stated. Reportedly, the film explores the theme of bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism and features 20-minutes of explicit sex scenes. The studio reached out to the CBFC seeking a screening in India, stated the Mirror report quoting a source, “They haven't been given an appointment yet but once that is sorted, the makers are optimistic to release the film in the last week of February or early March." The Indian arm of the Hollywood-studio producing the film has sent back the film print to LA for “internal-trimming," the report further stated. “Once the Indian censors suggest cuts, and in this case they are anticipating several, the producers have to consult with the studio bosses in Los Angeles on the changes prior to the Indian release. To ensure that the cuts are minimised, the studio is sending a trimmed version to the censors. Once the drive codes are submitted, the Board will take a call on the cuts," the report quoted a source from the CBFC. Another member of the Board, Ashoke Pandit said to Mirror, "It will follow the normal process of censoring like any other Hollywood film coming to India. How many cuts it gets will depend on the members present at the screening."
Finding Fanny Homi Adajania's Finding Fanny was the latest to join the bandwagon of films that were asked to delete certain portions from it, before the film it had hit theatres. According to a Mumbai Mirror report dated August 25, Homi Adajania has been asked to delete a 'vulgar' line from the film where actress Deepika Padukone tells actor Arjun Kapoor, "I'm a virgin". As per the report, Homi argued that the word 'virgin' has been passed earlier in films like Dil Se (1998) where Preity Zinta asks Shah Rukh Khan whether he is a virgin. In 2 States (2014) too, after a steamy scene, Alia asks Arjun if this is his "first time." However, Homi was reportedly asked to chop it if he wanted a UA certificate. The Censor Board apparently objected to Dimple Kapadia's posterior shot in the film as well. As per a Mumbai Mirror report dated August 27, the veteran actress sounded displeased with the CBFC over this and reacted, "I need to have a word with these people. They pass kissing scenes and nudity, but object to my fully-clothed bum." [sic]. Reportedly, CBFC Chairperson Leela Samson has admitted that deleting the line from the movie was a 'mistake'. As per a Mumbai Mirror report dated September 6, the line had been cleared and was back in the film. [The print Indpaedia’s volunteers saw did not have the line. The Deepika character only mentions that she had not been kissed.]
Grand Masti According to a report on Mid-day.com, the censor board wants 218 scenes deleted from Grand Masti’s TV premiere. The sex comedy film might finally see a television premiere about 17 months post its theatrical release. Regional officer of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), Rahul Vaidya has sent a show cause notice to the makers asking them to effect 218 cuts for small screen viewing, the report stated. According to the report, filmmaker Inder Kumar says that the process of deleting the scenes is already underway.
Happy Ending Saif Ali Khan's Happy Ending, co-produced by Dinesh Vijan, was given a UA certificate only after three cuts, reports Mumbai Mirror. Certain expletives like `as*h*l*' and `f****rs' have been modified to 'ass' and 'fokers' and the word 'naked' has been deleted. However, a member of the cast is exultant that words like 'penis' and 'ch***ya' have not got the cut, the report states. “We let the word 'ch**iya' pass if it isn't uttered too often in a film. But, the word 'penis' should never be passed. The print that was screened for us was barely audible and a lot of what was being said on screen, was pure guesswork on our part," the report quotes a CBFC member (on condition of anonymity). When questioned on the word 'penis', Raj quipped to Mirror, “It was actually a reference to peanuts which Ranvir Shorey and Saif have while having a drink. But perhaps it doesn't sound like peanuts."
Jism 2 Pooja Bhatt ran into trouble with the Censor Board when her film Jism 2 was about to release. The movie marked adult film star Sunny Leone's debut in Bollywood, but that wasn't the reason the Censor Board withheld their certification. Apparently, the Board asked director Pooja Bhatt to chop off the length of four love making scenes from the film, as per a report in Times of India. The scenes were asked to be reduced to half, only then would it get an adult certificate. Sunny Leone featured in all the four love making scenes in the film. Pooja Bhatt complied and the scenes were reduced in length accordingly. However, she mentions that in one love making scene, a part of Sunny Leone's breast was visible and that was also one of the things pointed out by the board.
Margarita With A Straw... Here's how the Censor Board reacted to Kalki Koechlin's lesbian scenes in Margarita With A Straw... According to a report in Mumbai Mirror, Censor Board's Revising Committee has cleared a same-sex lovemaking scene from the film, Margarita With A Straw but strangely insisted on trimming straight coupling. The Censors wanted a shot showing the lead character peeing cut, and a 13-second kissing scene between Kalki and her lesbian lover removed from the film which is about a woman with cerebral palsy coming to terms with her queer sexuality. But in a welcome move, the film has now got a clean chit from the CBFC's Revising Committee. “We've come out with only a single cut!“ says an elated Shonali Bose, the producer-director of the film. However, the director is not happy with the Revising Committee shortening a 16-second scene involving a straight couple having sex. Shonali was asked to tone it down by "50 percent" because, to quote a Board member, “too much ho raha hai." <>However, Shonali hadn't expected things to be so smooth. She had anticipated more friction with the CBFC.
According to a Mumbai Mirror report, Censor Board has told the director of Margarita, With A Straw that they have moral guidelines to follow. Despite assurances from the Minister of State for Information & Broadcasting, Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore that the Central Board of Film Certification is a 'certifying body' not a 'censoring one', the Board continues to wield its scissors on films, the report stated. And its latest casualty is Shonali Bose's award winning film Margarita, With A Straw, a coming-of-age story of a young girl suffering from cerebral palsy, played by Kalki Koechlin, who comes to terms with her queer sexuality. The report further stated that after watching the film, the Examining Committee (EC) asked the makers to tone down a kissing scene between Kalki and Sayani Gupta. "There is a 12-second long kiss between the two characters, but the CBFC had problems with it. They want me to reduce it to just a few seconds. I explained that as it is their first kiss, it can't be that brief," the report quoted Shonali. <>The members also asked Bose to edit out a scene when Kalki shows the middle finger. Another sequence shows a male character removing her undergarments so that she could use the washroom and she then proceeds to urinate. This too riled the Censors, the report further stated. "The film will go to the Revising Committee now. I hope better sense prevails as the EC, to my shock, told me they had moral guidelines to follow," an exasperated Shonali told Mirror.
According to a report on Ndtv.com, Aamir Khan, who was present at the trailer launch of the film Margarita, With a Straw, said he was not in favour of censorship. The actor stated that he was not in favour of censorship but was in favour of the rating system. Also adding that one should not try and pre-empt what the Censor certification should be and how the members will react. Further to the report on Ndtv.com, the actor also added that in a democratic country like India where there was freedom of speech, it would be quite difficult to not allow a film to release on unreasonable grounds. Aamir also expressed his surprise at NH10 (initially) being denied a certification by the Censor Board and called it rather unusual and unprecedented, as further mentioned on Ndtv.com
Miss Lovely featuring Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Niharika Singh made headlines when it was sent to the Censor Board for certification. Looking at the adult and explicit content in the film, the CBFC proposed to make 157 cuts to the film, according to a report in Times of India. However, during the course of the year, the Board toned down their diktat and in turn passed the film with an 'A' certificate with just four cuts. Filmmaker Ashim Ahluwalia, whose film got critical acclaim internationally, was unsure if it would release in India looking at its content.
MSG: The Messenger of God According to a report in Mumbai Mirror, the CBFC revising committee has denied the release of MSG: The Messenger of God citing the reason that it might create law and order issues. Featuring a 'rockstar baba,' the film's trailer received over a million hits on video sharing websites but the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to clear the film. Confirming the news, CBFC member Nandini Sardesai told Mirror, "All seven members agreed that in its entirety, this film cannot be shown as it not only promotes blind faith and superstition, but also hurts religious sentiments and could cause communal problems."
Poshter Boyz Actor-producer Shreyas Talpade's film Poshter Boyz which talks about vasectomy made headlines when the film was passed with a U/A certificate by the Censor Board without suggesting a single cut. Shreyas, in an interview to Times of India, said that his film had no vulgar content and utmost care had been taken about the kind of humour incorporated in it and about the language used. While the edgy subject of the film may have raised eyebrows, the Censor Board cleared the air and gave the film a U/A rating.
Ragini MMS 2 Sunny Leone's Ragini MMS 2 aimed at spicing up things for cine goers with its bold content. However, the makers had to dilute the tone and content of the film after the Censor Board asked them to make certain edits before its release. Ekta Kapoor's film was asked to make three important cuts in the story. A Mumbai Mirror report explains the three scenes that were asked to be edited from the film. In one particular scene, the lead pair go to a bungalow for the weekend. In this scene, the hero talks about the after effects of an aphrodisiac, which the Censor Board found too explicit. There is another scene in the movie where the lead pair talk about male and female genitals and this too was apparently saucy for the audiences. Another scene that was asked to be edited was when the male protagonist suggests that his girlfriend indulge in oral sex.
Sorry Musician Mihir Joshi's song 'Sorry' was in trouble with the Censor Board for using the word 'Bombay' in the lyrics, following which it had to beeped out. And now according to a report on Mid-day.com, the Censor Board seems to have planned to put a blanket ban on the word 'Bombay' and has also informed the producer's associations to not accept registrations for film titles, lyrics or dialogues containing 'Bombay.' The Mid-day report further quoted a source saying that they were following the guidelines from 1996 gazette which stated to restore the city's name as Mumbai.
The Xpose Himesh Reshammiya's The Xpose made headlines for various reasons and one of them was its tussle with the Censor Board. The CBFC made an objection to Sonali Raut's skin show in the film. The scene which is a tribute to Raj Kapoor's Satyam Shivam Sundaram, shows Sonali in a wet white saree recreating Zeenat Aman's iconic scene from the original. While it was shown in the film's trailer, the CBFC asked the makers to delete it from the film. Another scene where actor Zoya Afroz is running on the beach wearing a bikini, did not go down too well with the CBFC. The makers were once again asked to blur the actress' cleavage in this scene. According to a Times of India report, another scene where a brand name was used prominently was also asked to be blurred.
Ugly Anurag Kashyap won his long-standing battle with the censor board with the release of his dark thriller Ugly. Having said that, the filmmaker has also found a supporter in Farhan Akhtar as he joins Anurag in his fight against the practice of inserting anti-smoking disclaimers into films, arguing that it's just a distraction, not effective messaging, reports Mumbai Mirror. For over a year, Anurag Kashyap had delayed the release of Ugly, refusing to carry the mandatory anti-smoking disclaimer whenever a cigarette was seen smouldering on screen. Anurag is determined to continue with his fight and refuses to watch his film in the theatres, saying that the disclaimer would make him feel insulted and cheated, the report states. “We all are in agreement that smoking is injurious to health. But is running a disclaimer as a sub-title during a scene the solution to the problem? The answer is 'no'," Farhan told Mirror. In his petition submitted in the Bombay High Court, Anurag argued that the disclaimer restrains a filmmaker's constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
2011: Aarakshan--Fear of breach of peace
Aarakshan's Screening stopped
Supreme Court lifts ban on 'Aarakshan' in Uttar Pradesh
TNN & Agencies | Aug 19, 2011, 02.53PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday set aside Uttar Pradesh government's decision to suspend the screening of filmmaker Prakash Jha's " Aarakshan".
The court said the UP government had no powers to suspend screening of the film on the ground that it may cause breach of peace.
An apex court bench of Justice M Sharma and Justice Anil R Dave said the state government cannot seek deletion of certain potions of the film as this amounted to censorship.
The court said once the Central Board of Film Certification cleared the public screening of a film, no state government can raise objections on its content.
Referring to the Uttar Pradesh government's contention that reservation was a very delicate issue and certain scenes in "Aarakshan" had the potential of affecting the law and order situation, the court said it could not agree with this as the film is being shown all over the country, including in the states which are sensitive to reservation.
"Aarakshan", starring Amitabh Bachchan, Saif Ali Khan and Deepika Padukone, deals with caste-based reservations in the Indian education system.
2012-14: Adults only films
The Times of India, Aug 03 2015
Himanshi Dhawan
Number of `adult' films trimmed for TV goes up
The number of adult films subject to the censor board's scissors to make them fit for TVhas steadily increased in the last three years. While 249 films with adult (A) certification were re-examined and given UA certificate in 2012, the number went up to 276 in 2013 and 284 in 2014. About 1,400 films have been certified by the Censor Board since January this year of which 189 adult films were given UA certificate. Since there is a ban on adult content on TV , films need to qualify as UA to be shown on cable TV . UA certificate means that under-12s require adult supervision as some scenes may be unsuitable for them.Most Bollywood producers vie for a it as TV rights constitute alarge source of revenue.
There is nothing in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or the CBFC guidelines regarding re-certification, yet it is a “facility provided since the early 1990s. Since censor board chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani took charge in Ja nuary , filmmakers feel the adult certification has been handed out all too easily.They have been asked to remove words like lesbian, Bombay , saala, if they wanted a UA certification.
Certification for TV hit a controversy recently when a CAG report pointed out that the censor board had reclassified 172 adult-rated movies as general category films over the past three years without following its own rules.
In an RTI plea to Punebased Vihar Durve, the CBFC said 172 `A' films had been re-certified between October 2012 and March 2015 as `UA' without following set procedure.
2013-2014: Some prominent cuts
The Times of India, Dec 03 2015
I&B lists cuts in 40 films to show up `sanskari' UPA
I&B ministry sources said the CBFC had imposed cuts on nudity, intimate scenes and cuss words in 2013-2014 before the present board was appointed by the BJP government. Cuss words, intimate scenes nudity were chopped off from several films like Murder 3 Ghanchakkar, Megamind, Ro bocop, Queen, Ragini MMS 2 Hate Story 2, Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania, Highway among a series of others, officials said.
2014-17: state tightens grip; cuts increase 6%
November 28, 2017: The Times of India
From: November 28, 2017: The Times of India
See graphic:
Total films cleared- category of certificate, cleared with cuts, April 2014-16, year-wise
The analysis of data on film certification in the past two years suggests that the state is tightening its grip on artistic content. In 2015-16, more than half (54%) the films cleared by the Central Board of Film Certificate were after cuts. This was 6% higher than in the previous years. This means 143 more films had to undergo cuts than in 2014-15.
2015: prime cuts from some movies
From: Narinder Saini, Suhani Singh, December 14, 2015: India Today
See graphic:
Prime cuts from some famous movies- 2015
2015-2016: U, UA and Adult films
The Times of India
See graphic.
2016
`Haraamkhor'"refused" certification
The Times of India, Jun 19 2016
Himanshi Dhawan & Mohua Chatterjee
The controversy over Udta Punjab has barely died down when another Anurag Kashyap production has run in to rough weather.The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has refused to certify Nawazuddin Siddiqui starrer `Haraamkhor' objecting to its theme which deals with a studentteacher romance. The filmmakers now plan to approach the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. The Censor Board has “refused“ certification on the grounds that a teacher is a “respectable figure in our society“ and the film shows an illicit relationship between a teacher and a teenage student. “There are many filthy dialogues spoken by kids and body gestures of the kids were also found to be objectionable. Kids commit ting crime etc does not merit any certificate to the film.Hence, `refused' because of its theme itself,“ the CBFC letter said.
When asked, Kashyap confirmed that the producers were planning to appeal to FCAT against the CBFC decision.
The film, directed by Shlok Sharma, is a love story that revolves around a delicate relationship between a school teacher in a small Gujarati town and his teenage female student. It has been produced by Kashyap and Guneet Monga under the Sikhya Entertainment banner.
Haraamkhor was premiered in the 15th annual New York Indian Film Festival and Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles (IFFLA).
Nawazuddin Siddiqui received the best actor award for the film at the New York Indian Film Festival.
Sources said that the board's examining committee had a problem with the fact that a love affair between a teacher and student was being depicted when teachers are revered in India. Filmmakers pointed out that such themes had been explored in several films earlier and it was disturbing that the board was over-reaching in its functions to sit on judgement over social issues.
CBFC and its chief Pahlaj Nihalani in particular have come under fire recently over attempts to censor the film `Udta Punjab' based on the drug menace in the state.The film was finally cleared for certification after the Bombay HC intervened.
Certifications arbitrarily softened
The Times of India, Jun 13 2016
Himanshi Dhawan
Tribunal slams CBFC's `arbitrary' film certifications In a strongly worded order, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) has pulled up the censor board for “arbitrary and capricious“ approach in changing the certification of several films from adult to UA (which can be watched by all age groups with adult supervision). In its order dated May 24, the FCAT headed by Justice (retd) S K Mahajan listed 16 films including Dirty Picture, Dum Maro Dum, Desi Boyz, Heroine, NH 10, Badlapur, Hate Story 2 and 3 and said the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had changed the films' category without any explanation or transparency .
CBFC set up in 1961, P 11 “We find that CBFC has been arbitrarily taking decisions about change of category without in any manner specifying as which guidelines are followed... In our view, the whole approach of the CBFC is totally arbitrary and capricious. Decisions are taken by the CBFC without any transparency and without even informing the applicants as to why the certificate has been refused,“ the FCAT said.
The order comes close on the heels of public criticism of censor board chief Pahlaj Nihalani's decision to give 89 cuts to the movie Udta Punjab including references to the state and its cities with an adult certificate which many alleged was a politically motivated decision.On Friday , the Bombay HC rapped the censor board and asked it to stick to its job of certification rather than censorship.
The FCAT order is related to Hindi film Yaara Silly Silly that had been given an A certificate in January for “derogatory , vulgar and double meaning dialogues“. The producer wanted to show the film on TV and made certain voluntary cuts to get a UA certificate but the CBFC rejected the application. The filmmaker then approached the FCAT.
The tribunal noted that the CBFC had not responded to its letters seeking comments but in another matter had asked FCAT to indicate provision regarding conversion of film from A or UA. There is no provision in the Cinematography Act but a facility provided by CBFC to the film industry through an executive order.
100 cuts for Gujarati film on caste quotas
The Times of India, Jun 14 2016
Ashish Chauhan
Censors' 100 reservations hit Gujarat quota film release
The makers of Bollywood movie `Udta Punjab' may have heaved a sigh of relief on Monday , but the struggle for artistic freedom against the censor board continues for the makers of a Gujarati movie, `Salagto Sawaal Anamat' (Burning Question of Reservation). Questioning the motive of the film-makers in picking the emotive theme, and raising concerns over the protagonist's resemblance to Patel quota activist Hardik Patel, who faces sedition charges, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) last week suggested 100 cuts tothe film.
The film's co-producer Jaypratapsinh Chauhan said they immediately filed an appeal against the decision before a review committee of the board, which will hear the plea.
The film, produced on a modest budget, was slated for release on June 17, the same day as `Udta Punjab'.“We will have to delay the re lease now,“ said director Rajesh Gohil, who has made seven Gujarati films.
The cuts include removal of the word `Patidar' or `Patel' from each and every scene as well as content evocative of the quota agitation.Also, the film-makers were asked to remove references to B R Ambedkar.
“This is an attempt to curb the freedom of expression and creativity . I tried to convince them that the film is not exactly based on Hardik Patel. But they argued that the protagonist looked similar to the jailed quota leader,“ Gohil said.
“The censor board member had told us that since a case of sedition is pending against Hardik, we cannot glorify his character. This is not true because my film is based on the quota agitation, not Hardik,“ Gohil added.The film talks about Dipak Patel, who faces hardships due to the existing reservation system.
In no mood to cut a single scene, the film-makers are prepared to move court. “If I will remove the word `Patidar', the soul of the film will be gone,“ Gohil said.
2017
Babumoshai Bandookbaz
BOARD OF ROWS - CBFC rates film `A', also seeks 48 cuts, August 3, 2017: The Times of India
Censor Board chief Pahlaj Nihalani waded into yet another controversy on Wednesday after it emerged that he had demanded 48 cuts for a Bollywood film despite having granted it an `adults A only' or ` ' certificate. The movie, `Babumoshai Bandookbaz', features intimate scenes between actors Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Bidita Bag.
The Indian Film and TV Directors Association (IFTDA) organised a presser on Wednesday in support of director Kushan Nandy , and actor Aamir Khan said the job of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is to certify films, not censor them.
Nandy told, “The examining committee handed us a list of 48 cuts, including cuss words, intimate scenes and some abuses that are integral to the script. I said I will lose 80% of my film at this rate. So I approached Nihalani and said I would like to appeal against the decision before the board's revising committee headed by him.Imagine my shock when he retorted that he would double the number of cuts. Take it or leave it, he said.“
Producer Kiran Shroff also alleged that a board member passed offensive remarks when she asked for the reason behind the cuts. “ A lady officer turned to me and said, Aap aurat hokar aisi filmein ` kaise bana sakti hain (How can you as a woman make such films)?' And before I could speak up, a man on the committee said, `But she is not a woman. Look at what she is wearing,'“ Shroff claimed.
Censoring Amartya Sen
CBFC wants no `cow' in Amartya film, stirs a row
CBFC wants no `cow' in Amartya film, stirs a row|Jul 13 2017 : The Times of India (Delhi)
Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and author of `The Argumentative Indian', led the chorus of angry voices that questioned the censor board's intent and interest in demanding the wipeout of words like “cow“, “Gujarat“, “Hindu India“ and “Hindutva view of India“ from a documentary film revolving around conversations between Sen and Kaushik Basu, chief economic adviser in the UPA-2 regime. Sen said the Central Board of Film Certification's move settled a key question in his mind: whether such bodies appointed by the Centre acted in the interest of the nation or in the interest of the ruling party . “I think this incident offers a fairly clear answer,“ he said .
Celebrities like poet Sankha Ghosh, actor Soumitra Chattopadhyay and author Nabaneeta Dev Sen came down heavily on the board for its “attack on freedom of expression“. “Every single voice of the opposition is being muzzled. Now, Dr Amartya Sen. If somebody of his stature cannot express himself freely , what hope does the common citizen have!“ CM Mamata Banerjee tweeted.
Sen remarked the CBFC's actions were a reflection of the authoritarian regime that currently ruled the country. “The regime wants to use these bodies (CBFC) that are meant to be bodies of the state rather than the government to act in the interest of the the ruling party. It tells you about the way democracy is being interpreted by ruling party“ Many view the CBFC's actions as being part of the Centre's proxy war against Sen, who has been critical of demonetisation and has often taken on PM Modi for the Guj Argumentative Inarat riots. ` dian' director Suman Ghosh did not rule out the Sen's presence in the documentary as being one of the reasons for CBFC's hypersensitivity .
CBFC officials brushed aside the remarks. “We have not refused certification. The panel has approved the documentary for `U' certification with some amendments.“
Ghosh intends to appeal to the revising committee. If still dissatisfied, the filmmaker can approach the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.
2018: the words “cow”, “Hindu”, and “Hindutva” are not removed
Priyanka Dasgupta, CBFC relief to documentary on Amartya, January 5, 2018: The Times of India
Priyanka Dasgupta, January 5, 2018: The Times of India
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen can say ‘cow’ but not ‘Gujarat’ in the Suman Ghosh-directed documentary, ‘The Argumentative Indian’.
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) chairman Prasoon Joshi permitted Suman Ghosh — whose documentary on Nobel laureate Amartya Sen ran into trouble with the board — to retain words like “cow”, “Hindu”, and “Hindutva” in the film, after an “oral hearing” with the filmmaker in Mumbai on Thursday, claimed Ghosh.
Ghosh said the hearing for the documentary, ‘The Argumentative Indian’, was a “pleasant anti-climax” and a “victory for freedom of expression”.
Other CBFC officials, however, did not rule out chances of Ghosh getting a showcause notice and being asked to make one “modification”, regarding a reference to “Gujarat”. The word features in a lecture that Sen delivered at Cornell University.
Ghosh, however, said he did not have any idea about the content of the show-cause notice and would take a call on his next course of action only after he gets the notice. Choosing not to comment on the contents of the notice, CBFC CEO Anurag Srivastava said, “An official show-cause is yet to be issued.”
Kerala HC orders ‘S Durga’ screening at IFFI
The Kerala high court ordered that Malayalam film ‘S Durga’, earlier called ‘Sexy Durga’, be allowed to be screened at the ongoing 48th International Film Festival of India (Iffi) in Goa.
A HC issued the order to the I&B ministry on a petition filed by the film’s director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan challenging its exclusion from Iffi, which began on November 20. The ministry had told the HC that ‘S Durga’ did not have censor board clearance and there were complaints that it offended religious sentiments as ‘Durga’ is the name of a goddess. The Iffi jury had shortlisted it without CBFC certification, it argued.
No one can object to ‘S Durga’, says HC
Sexy Durga’ was the first Indian movie to win the Tiger Award for budding filmmakers at the Iffi at Rotterdam. The Kerala HC said the film had got CBFC certification on October 10 by changing the title to ‘S Durga’. A certified version of the movie should be allowed to be screened as no objection had been raised regarding the certification, it held.
Lead actor of ‘S Durga’ S Kannan said the “court has stood with the right side” and the festival organizers should also screen ‘Nude’. Festival director Sunit Tandon declined to comment on the status of the film’s inclusion, saying, “I am not appropriately placed to talk.” The court is the only hope for people like us. They (makers of ‘Nude’) didn’t go to court. They made that mistake. But the film should also be screened here. Because the jury had unanimously selected both movies,” Kannan told TOI. The ministry had also contended that the petitioner could not challenge the rejection in the Kerala HC as the festival was being conducted in Goa and the ministry’s decision was taken in New Delhi. But, the court ruled in favour of the petitioner’s argument that the certification was made at CBFC’s regional office in Thiruvananthapuram.
Director Sasidharan told PTI, “I am very happy. It’s a victory of cinema and democracy. People stood by us. The chairman resigned, other jury members also resigned”
Mersal: HC refuses to delete anti-GST dialogue
Anti-GST dialogues in actor Vijay's blockbuster `Mersal' were a mere expression of opinion in a film, so courts cannot interfere and order their deletion, Madras high court observed.
Refusing to entertain a PIL filed by an advocate to revoke censor certificate for the film, a division bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice M Sundar said that if the petitioner had genuine concern about public interest he should have started campaigns against social evils like untouchability , women safety , alcoholism and smoking. But he had chosen to attack a particular movie, the judges remarked.
Rebutting the contention of the PIL-petitioner that movies should not contain dialogues criticising schemes of government, particularly with incorrect facts, the bench said: “Even today media reported that the leader of the opposition in Tamil Nadu (MK Stalin) has criticised demonetisation. Can the court pass a gag order against him from making such statements? This is democracy , and people have their right to freedom of expression, and this applies to films as well.“ The PIL, in fact, helped the producer of the movie to gain more publicity, and that there was no compulsion on anyone to watch it.
Advocate A Ashvathaman had approached the court saying the censor certificate for the film should be revoked on the ground that the dialogues adversely affected the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.“False information about GST and digital India scheme would encourage people to evade tax,“ he had said. He said censor certificate to film had been issued by CBFC in gross violation of Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Omprakash Zindabad: ‘Don’t summarily reject certification for films’
Swati Mathur, Tribunal says don't refuse to clear films summarily, June 3, 2017: The Times of India
The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) has advised the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to not summarily reject certification for films if they can be passed with cuts, deletions, modifications or additions. The FCAT said such an approach will save producers “avoidable expenses“ and also the tendency to appeal before the FCAT, “which of late has shown a rising trend“.
The FCAT made the observation while allowing the appeal of Khalid Kidwai, director of Hindi feature film `Rambhajjan Zindabad', against the CBFC refusing its certification.Following FCAT's intervention, the movie, actor Om Puri's last film before he died, has been rechristened `Omprakash Zindabad', and has been recommended for ` A ' certificate.
Speaking to TOI on the matter, CBFC chairman Pahlaj Nihlani said, “I disagree with the procedures that are followed to grant these approvals by FCAT. First, FCAT should see the same version of the film that was shown to CBFC to offer its opinion. Second, according to the rules, CBFC is not mandated to suggest cuts to films; it is up to producers to make the changes...“ Despite his “objections“, Nihlani said, “The `A' certificate will be issued to the film.
SC clears artistic licencetaken by `Indu Sarkar'
Holding that there was nothing wrong in dramatising historical facts on screen, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the release of Madhur Bhandarkar's film “Indu Sarkar“, which purportedly depicts the Emergency period.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, after going through the trailer of the film, said a movie was not a documentary and filmmakers were allowed to present facts in a dramatised fashion in films.
“Depiction of history has its own nuances and perception. Allow researchers and projectors to showcase their work. Do not go behind them... As far as exhibition of the movie is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is an artistic expression within the parameters of law and there is no warrant or justification to curtail the same,“ the bench said. The apex court dismissed a petition filed by Priya Singh Paul, who claims to be the biological daughter of Sanjay Gandhi. She alleged that the movie showed the Gandhi family in bad light and its release should be stayed.
Alleging that the film was based on “concocted“ facts, Paul's advocate K Sultan Singh told the court that the director had admitted that only 30% of the film's content was based on facts.
He contended that the main characters of the film depicted the late Sanjay Gandhi and his mother Indira Gandhi and the film was made to malign their character. “This is purely a commercial venture and it has nothing to do with education or documentation of that era,“ Singh said.
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Bhandarkar, said the characters in the film were purely fictional and it was cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). “In any film, dramatisation of historical events cannot be curbed.CBFC has carefully considered the film and granted certificate... It is my fundamental right of expression and it cannot be curbed,“ he said.
Paul approached the SC after her plea for a ban on the film was rejected by the Bombay high court.
Shunyota
Priyanka Dasgupta, Bengal censors refuse to clear notebandi film, March 29, 2017: The Times of India
The Kolkata office of the Central Board of Film Certification has refused to certify a film based on demonetisation, and sent it to chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani for clearance.The film was scheduled for release.
Regional officer Ajoy Mahmia said that Suvendu Ghosh's `Shunyota' was referred to Nihalani according to the rulebook as there were differences among the members of the examining committee.
However, the director has accused CBFC of delaying certification since the film opposes Prime Minister Narendra Modi's demonetisation drive, which, it claimed, has had a “catastrophic effect on several people“. Ghosh had approached CBFC for certification on March 16.
The film's plot revolves around a writer who is releas ing a book with three stories that revolve around the demonetisation excercise.
The filmmaker had already received separate censor certificates for the first two stories, which were submitted as documentaries. A 24-minutelong film titled `Shunyota', and another 23-minute-long film, `Shunyota 2' were certified by Nilanjana Roy and Ajoy Mahmia as UA (Parental guidance) and U (suitable for every one), respectively . “Since the board had given me clearance for the documentaries, I never thought there would be an issue when I added another story and tried to get certification for a 105-minute feature film,“ Ghosh said.
Insisting that he is not antiBJP , the director said, “The CBFC has developed cold-feet fearing that certifying a film on demonetisation might not go down well with the Union ministry . Since CM Mamata Banerjee had strongly opposed demonetisation, the Kolkata office doesn't want to take the risk of certifying a film on the subject and is passing the buck. I wear no political colour, but I would definitely want to show my film to Banerjee.“
Cleared with six cuts
Priyanka Dasgupta, CBFC clears notebandi film with six cuts , April 1, 2017: The Times of India
Three days after the regional branch of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) sent a film based on demonetisation to chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani for clearance, director Suvendu Ghosh was called over to the Board's Kolkata office on Friday and told that his film, Shunyota, had been cleared for UA certification with six cuts.
Ghosh was asked to mute or delete dialogues and sequences critical of the note ban.
“The chairperson of CBFC has decided the matter. The movie was cleared as per the recommendations of the examining committee. The majority decision of the committee was upheld by the chairperson,“ said Ajoy Mahmia, the regional officer of CBFC Kolkata.
The director has been as ked to delete a 10-second sequence in which one of the characters says he can't accept the “procession of death“ ( mrityur michchil ) following demonetisation, and a shot where a money-lender laments how the government has created a lot of difficulty for the poor. The CBFC has also sought muting of the words `gatar' (body) and `subi' (sleep) and three other statements critical of the Centre's demonetisation drive.
“These cuts only prove that the government wants to silence any voice protesting demonetisation,“ said Ghosh.
Words that the censors omitted
WHAT THE BEEP! THE WORDS INDIA'S CENSORS CAN'T STAND|Jul 16 2017 : The Times of India (Delhi)
It's only words, and words are all I have... goes the song. Clearly the Censor Board feels otherwise. In recent months, there has been a rapid increase in the number of words added to the `'bleeped list. Filmmakers please note:
2018
Aaleya told to mute ‘Gujarat’, ‘Ahmedabad,’ Kafer,’ ‘Trishuley genthey’
Priyanka Dasgupta, April 22, 2018: The Times of India
Yet another film, this one directed by a senior Bengal cop, has run into the crosshairs of the Central Board of Film Certification for the word ‘Gujarat’.
The regional office of CBFC has asked for six modifications, including muting of the word ‘Gujarat’ on the two occasions it occurs, in the Bengali film ‘Aaleya’, directed by Bengal deputy inspector-general (traffic) Humayun Kabir.
There is a clampdown on the words ‘Ahmedabad’, ‘Jai Shri Ram’, ‘Kafer’ and ‘Trishuley genthey (pinned to trident)’ as well.
Nanak Shah Fakir: CBFC clears it; protests in Punjab, Jammu
The Supreme Court directed the Centre, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and all state governments to ensure that the film “Nanak Shah Fakir” is released across the country on April 13, Baisakhi.
Coming out strongly in defence of the right to free speech and expression, especially of artistes and actors, the court said law and order must be maintained wherever the film is released “and no one shall be allowed to create any disturbance. It is the duty of the state to facilitate the enjoyment of a right which has the sanction of law”.
The film will, however, not be released in Punjab as the producers have themselves decided against it.
Punjab initially decided to ban Nanak movie but backed off
In their petition before the Supreme Court, the filmmakers had submitted that “looking at the sensitivity of the issue and the public sentiment involved,” they had decided “not to release the film in the state of Punjab for the time being.”
The Punjab government had initially decided to ban the film given the widespread protests against it, but then took a step back. Chief minister Amarinder Singh said, “Any decision to ban the movie had become unnecessary in view of the filmmakers’ decision against releasing it in Punjab.”
Amarinder asked Sikh groups not to become violent but then added, “While authors and filmmakers had the creative freedom of expression, such freedom could not be allowed to violate the religious sensitivities of any community.”
Hearing a plea by the filmmakers, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud frowned at vigilante groups attempting to assume CBFC’s role in the public screening of films. It also slammed SGPC for creating hurdles in the film’s release despite it having CBFC’s clearances. “We do not see how anybody, group, association or individual can create any kind of disturbance in exhibition of the film,” the judges said.
SGPC had initially appreciated the film and even agreed to promote it. However, after certain Sikh groups protested against its release, the Sikh religious body withdrew its support and asked the government to ban it.
Akal Takht, the highest temporal seat of Sikhs, “banned” the film and asked Sikhs to stay away from it. Several Sikh organisations are objecting to the portrayal of Guru Nanak in the film, saying any on-screen depiction of a Sikh guru or his family members was against the tenets of Sikh religion.
SC: ‘private people’ can’t curtail freedom of expression
Jaspreet Nijher, April 11, 2018: The Times of India
The fate of Nanak Shah Fakir, which is based on the life and work of Guru Nanak, has been in limbo since 2015. The film, which has been ‘approved’ and later ‘banned’ by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and the Akal Takht, was cleared for release by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with the Court stating that the CBFC’s nod was “final”, and that “the freedom of expression of an artiste can’t be curtailed by a group of private people”. The film will now be released as planned - unless it runs into fresh legal or administrative roadblocks.
The film was initially released in April 2015, and, according to reports, both the SGPC and the Akal Takht had given their nod to it at that point of time. The film’s producer Harinder Sikka had said that the Akal Takht Jathedar, Gurbachan Singh, had called the film “a fine example of the promotion of the Sikh faith”. However, four days after its release, the film was withdrawn by Sikka following protests and opposition by both the bodies. Gurbachan Singh denied approving the film, and said that he had only appreciated the project before the movie was made. The SGPC subsequently formed an eight-member sub-committee to ‘review’ the movie.
In 2016, the SGPC finally ‘approved’ the film for release, and said, “We have no objection in granting you permission to release the movie Nanak Shah Fakir.” Last month, the SGPC even sent letters asking the film to be shown in schools and to facilitate the promotion of the movie. On March 28, it issued a statement backing the film.
However, after protests from some members of the Sikh community, the committee withdrew its support the very next day, saying that it would now not allow the film’s release. The Akal Takht soon followed suit and ‘banned’ the film, after which Sikka moved the Supreme Court.
Speaking to us after the court cleared the film for release, Sikka said, “The Supreme Court has made it clear that individuals cannot decide the fate of films. It is the CBFC that makes the decision, and even state governments cannot interfere in its release. The film will be released, but it is up to the distributors to decide how to do it.”
Commenting on the flip-flop, Sikka said, “I don’t know why the SGPC or the Akal Takht have withdrawn their approval, despite clearing the film at every stage in 2016. As recent as March 22 this year, the whole of SGPC was on stage in Mumbai for the film’s poster launch by Akshay Kumar. Their collective decision was in favour of the film.
What happened at the individual level, I don’t know. Akal Takht and SGPC are institutions which should not be seen as changing their stance last minute. I have worked with them closely at every stage for one year, and to show the Guru as a light form was their decision too. As for portraying his family as humans, only the Guru was godly, not his family.”
Manjit Singh, Secretary, SGPC, disowns earlier validations and asserts, “There is much talk about the Akal Takht Jathedar Gurbachan Singh issuing an appreciation letter to the film in 2015. However, no one really knows that the actual appreciation in that letter was for the producer and not the film.” On his part, Gurbachan Singh says, “There was never a clearance for the film in its present state. The objections we had against the film back then, about giving a human representation to the family of Guru Nanak, remain. Ordinary actors cannot portray the Guru’s family members.” As for the SGPC having ‘cleared’ the film in 2016 after a sub-committee was formed to review it, Gurbachan Singh says, “Then ask those who cleared it at that time, and those who were helming the SGPC then. We never cleared the film.”
Whether they ‘cleared’ the film or not is irrelevant, as per the SC order. Coming on the heels of the Padmaavat controversy, which was a similar case of religious bodies opposing a film despite it being cleared by the CBFC, the ‘ban’ highlights the unofficial censorship filmmakers are facing. In Padmaavat’s context, the SC had stated that maintaining law and order and ensuring a smooth release was the state’s responsibility. In this case too, the SC has declared that no private bodies can ‘ban’ a film and that the mandate rests with the CBFC or a superior authority. Whether that actually gets the film to hit theatres this Friday remains to be seen.
Can’t ban film after CBFC gives certificate: SC
[Jaspreet Nijher, CAN’T BAN FILM AFTER CBFC GIVES CERTIFICATE: SC, April 11, 2018: The Times of India
Once the certificate is granted (by CBFC), unless it is nullified by a superior authority, the producer has every right to exhibit the film in movie halls. Any obstruction has the potential to bring anarchy and cripple the right of freedom of expression
See also
Censorship of cinema: India
Central Board of Film Certification: India
