Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on Amol Palekar petition against pre-censorship
Amol Palekar Amol Palekar
Actor Amol Palekar has filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court in which he has challenged some of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Certifications Rules, 1983. It is the first time in the last 47 years that the Certification Rules have been challenged by any citizen.
“In the light of the new technologies and developments, considering the paradigm shift in the mass media, it’s the need of this hour that we redefine, reclaim and resurrect contours of our individual freedoms,” said Palekar.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre to respond to Palekar’s petition. CBFC Chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani said, “The Cinematograph Act does not require any changes as such. In various countries across the world, the certification bodies follow a rating system which have around six to seven ratings, whereas in India we have only three ratings — A, U and A/U. Due to this rating system, many a times, it is not possible to give certificate to some films without any cuts. We have suggested the same to the I&B Ministry as well. Once the new rating system comes into force, all the issues will be taken care of and there will not be any requirement of changing the certification rules of the Cinematograph Act.”
The writ petition seeks to quash Section 4(1)(iii) which empowers the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to carry out excisions amounting to pre-censorship; to declare the present CBFC incompetent to carry on functions under the said Act; and to quash the said guidelines which are abstract, vague, imprecise leading to rampant erratic, subjective interpretations of scenes/language in a film amounting to unfair curtailment of the filmmakers’ freedom of expression.
In addition, the writ petition also seeks to quash certain provisions which provide for appointments of the members of the Board and/or the Examining Committee, or the Revising Committee, or even the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal without specifying any qualifications, leading to subjective, erratic, arbitrary interpretation of overbroad, imprecise guidelines by the unqualified members which in itself is very unfair and unreasonable restriction on the filmmakers’ freedom of speech. Besides, Palekar’s writ petition also seeks to remove “documentary” from the ambit of definition of Sections 2(c) and (dd), and to require documentaries to get the disclaimers regarding its content sanctioned from the CBFC.
In 1970, Palekar says, in the matter of KA Abbas v/s Union of India, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that cinematographic films in theaters were the most influential media of mass communication affecting the social mind. Therefore, exercise of censorship under the said Act was valid and necessary. However, he stresses that the social situation based on which the said decision was given has been changed drastically to such an extent that the decision needs to be overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
“Today, modern technology makes dissemination of information available in real time through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship. From 1980, we had Doordarshan as the only public service broadcaster. Now, we have more than 800 registered TV channels, along with local cable channels. We have over 780 million TV viewers in India. If the content presented/exhibited/uploaded on either of these two avenues is free of censorship or pre-censorship, what is the rationale behind the same content getting cut/altered/deleted and thereby being censored when and if exhibited in a cinema hall?” This amounts to discrimination barred by Article 14 of our Constitution,” he stresses.
The CBFC, according to Palekar, routinely demands cuts of scenes or dialogue failing which it denies certificates to films for arbitrary reasons. On one hand, milder abusive words are demanded to be cut from many films whereas films like Parched, Saat Uchakkey and Udta Punjab were cleared with an ‘A’ certificate, but without any cuts, he says.
In September last year, through his petition filed in the Bombay High Court, Palekar had challenged pre-censorship of theatre performances conducted by the Maharashtra State Performance Scrutiny Board under various provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as it “restricted freedom of speech and expression.”
For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now