All that’s fit to be screened

At the outset, some of the recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee to revamp the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), submitted last week to Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting Arun Jaitley, are worth applauding, especially the thrust on certifying films rather than indiscriminately censoring them. Let’s look at some of the laudatory suggestions first before asking the niggling questions.

The panel stated: “CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity.” The motivations of the panel are approbatory — artistic expression and creative freedom should not curbed, audiences should feel empowered to make informed viewing choices, and the certification process should be responsive to rapid social change. In view of this, the panel has called for an increase in the number of film certification categories now to U, UA12, UA15, A and AC (Adult with Caution).

Further, the committee has stated quite clearly that the censor board, including the chairperson, should only play the role of a guiding body and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of certification of films. This is a suggestion that perhaps emanates from the urgent need to curb the arbitrary intrusions that some filmmakers have been facing from the current chairman, Pahlaj Nihalani.

To tackle the problem of filmmakers being forced to contend with the random cuts being made to their films before they are shown on television, done to make the films more “suitable” for family viewing, the panel has called for a recertification of films for television. It has also recommended that every filmmaker who applies for certification deposit the original director’s cut and not the certified version at the National Film Archives of India in Pune. This would ensure that the filmmaker’s vision remain intact in the vaults of history, even if the film is not seen in its entirety by the public.

Despite these welcome suggestions, some questions remain. While the panel does uphold artistic freedom, the provision of certification comes with one huge rider: certification can be denied when a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Section states: “A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality , or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence” (emphasis mine). With terms such as “integrity” of the country, “decency” and “morality” being vague, prone to misuse, and open to personal interpretations, a film still stands vulnerable to misreading and misunderstanding. One person’s idea of decent could be another’s idea of offensive.

This brings us to the larger issue of the archaic Cinematograph Act, which needs to be overhauled and updated. The Mudgal Committee — set up under the United Progressive Alliance regime and headed by Mukul Mudgal, former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court — had made major recommendations on its modification, including of Sections 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B. It had covered in detail a gamut of critical issues, not just certification categories but also the process of selection of board members, jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal, the administrative set-up, and so on. Formed in the wake of the controversy over Tamil Nadu’s ban on the Kamal Haasan-starrer Vishwaroopam, the Mudgal Committee had even said that no State could ban a film without taking the Centre into confidence. According to filmmakers, at the moment, apart from the Union Act, every State has its own supplementary rules of censorship. There is also lack of consistency in certification of films. The Mudgal Committee had also come up with a model bill to be presented in Parliament.

In comparison to this comprehensive report, the current panel’s approach seems piecemeal. However, as only part one of its recommendations has been tabled and more is to come, there is hope that the future proposals will aim for more far-reaching changes aimed at a larger institutional revamp and systemic alteration. The government would then do well to expedite its implementation rather than put it on the back burner, as had been done to the Mudgal Committee report.

namrata.joshi@thehindu.co.in