Padmavati to S… Durga – Who Censors the censor board in India? (By- Shervin Mk)
Padmavati to S… Durga
– Who Censors the censor board in India?
Authored
By- Shervin Mk
ABSTRACT
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes artistic liberties
within its scope. On the one hand, there are heated debates and discussions
about the censor board's overreach in restricting filmmakers' freedom, and on
the other, there are fringe demands to ban movies even before they reach the
censor table. The paper examines the story of two ladies, Padmavati and S...
Durga, against the backdrop of film censorship. Padmavati, the Indian epic
period drama directed by Sanjay Leela Bansali, has sparked debate. The film's
release date, originally set for December 1, 2017, was postponed indefinitely
in response to threats of violence based on the film's depiction of factual
inaccuracies, casting the Rajput queen Padmavati in a negative light. Some
sects insist on being able to evaluate the film before it is released. But is
it fair to subject Bansali's film to the evaluation and approval of certain
sects unqualified in art and cinema, and then to the denial of a clearance
certificate from the Censor Board? S… Durga may not be as well-known as
Padmavati, but the fate is similar. The original title of the films was
"Sexy Durga," which is, of course, blasphemous in India, as Mr. M.F
Hussain can attest. The censor board approved a provisional certificate on the
condition that the name be changed to S... Durga. On second thought, and most
likely due to extraneous interferences, the Censor Board revoked the
provisional certificate. The contrasting positions taken by political parties
and intellectuals in the recent Padmavati and S... Durga controversy have
reopened the debate over cinema censorship in India and the constitutionally
guaranteed freedom of expression to the people. Is the censor board restricting
their freedom too much? True, India is a vast country with hundreds of cultures
and traditions, and even a small spark can ignite a large fire.It is natural
for there to be differences of opinion on the issues at hand. Through numerous
judgements, the Supreme Court has attempted to find an answer to this question.
The current paper makes an attempt to get to
the bottom of the issue and reach a conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
The greatest threat to today's filmmakers is not
making a wonderful picture, but making a film that meets the censorship board's
requirements. When a director submits his film for certification, he crosses
his fingers that it will be approved by the censorship board. In our country,
not a single year goes by without at least one movie being banned or a large
number of films being filtered. If it's "lipstick under my burkha"
this year, it'll be "udta Punjab" the following year.The list is
still increasing. Censorship, it is true, has a significant impact on avoiding
hate speech and conflicts in society. It monitors the films to guarantee that
the country's sovereignty and integrity are not jeopardised. This research work
attempts to determine where and under what situations censorship is required.
The article also discusses where the line should be drawn in terms of
infringing on artistic freedom in films.
Article 19(1) guarantees freedom of speech and
expression to all citizens of the country as a basic right.It enables an
individual to achieve self-actualization and serves as a democratic foundation,
allowing everyone to express their opinions and ideas. Expression through media
and literary works is also included in the right to free speech and expression.
A director or writer is free to express his artistic ideas and beliefs in
whichever way he sees fit, but this freedom is limited by article 19(2). In
Kanhaiya Kumar v State of Delhi[1],
the defendant was held guilty for chanting anti-national slogans, which harmed
the country's integrity and so violated Article 19(2). This is a perfect
example of the constraints that might be placed on a person's freedom of speech
and expression.Taking this into consideration, the censorship board is presumed
to have the authority to impose such restrictions, but the scope of such
restrictions has not been clearly established, and this uncertainty leads to
miscarriage of law and justice. This study attempts to analyse specific aspects
of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 that deal with the power of the censor board
in imposing limits and the involvement of the central government in this
process.
The
Cinematographic Act Of 1952
The act was enacted to ensure that films meet
the legal requirements. The provisions of the act establish a regulatory agency
known as the central board of film certification, which assigns different
certificates to movies before they are shown in public as a warning to the
audience about the content of the film. The board's functions include:
• Restricting the audience of a movie to
adults or some type of individuals based on the characteristics of a movie
before giving a certificate
•
Directing alterations and removals in the movie before granting a certificate
• Preventing the exhibition of a movie
completely
Sections 5B and 6 of the legislation give the
federal government sufficient authority to intervene in censorship board
proceedings and issue directives on censorship and movie certification. In
accordance with Section 6, the Central Government may, by announcement in the
Official Gazette, require a film to be uncertified and not permitted to be
exhibited in the entire country or any portion of the country, even though it
received a clean "U" certificate from the censorship board. The
intervention of the central government can be arbitrary at times and result in
a miscarriage of justice; one example is the 1975 political drama film
'Aandhi.'Suchitra Sen played the lead protagonist in the female-oriented film.
The main character of the film bore striking resemblances
to Indira Gandhi, including her dressing
style, silver streak of hair, and walking style, all of which were reminiscent
of the then-prime minister Indhira Gandhi. However, when Indhira Gandhi lost
the elections in 1977, the ban on the film was lifted, and it was even telecast
on Dhoordarshan. This is a fantastic example of how the involvement of the
central government can pose an imminent threat to miscarriage of justice and
restricting freedom of speech and expression based on the ruling party's whims
and fancies.They attempt to polish what the audience sees based on their
interests and wants. The same may be said for the censorship powers of
censorship boards, which frequently become arbitrary and unjustified.
For the first time in Abbas vs Union of India[2],
the court was given the opportunity to examine into issues of free speech and
expression beyond the framework of newspapers and magazines. The petitioner, an
award-winning film producer, was denied permission to broadcast his documentary
"The Tale of Four Cities" because it included shots from Bombay's
red-light district. If the narrative was to be certified for screening, the
board requested that some scenes be changed.He declined and filed a complaint
with the Supreme Court, alleging that the board was infringing on his artistic
freedom. Hidayatullah, C.J., ruled that banning movies that include
pre-censorship was legal. However, he said that the Board's unreasonable
restrictions on freedom of speech and expression should not be fleshed out. The
award-winning Lipstick Under My Burkha, which explores the issues of women's
sexuality and sexual desires, is the most recent victim of our country's strict
film censorship regulations. The Central Board of Picture Certification (CBFC)
denied the film a certificate for presentation, citing a violation of the
criteria established by the central government under the authority conferred by
Section 5B of the Cinematographic Act of 1952.The guidelines allegedly breached
were 1(a), 2(vii), 2(ix), 2(x), 2(xi), 2(xii), and 3.
Similarly to a few other cases, the CBFC
completely rejected many points of reference established by the courts this
time when refusing to issue a certificate to Lipstick Under My Burkha. The CBFC
cited guideline number 2(viii), which specifies that "vulgarity, obscenity,
and depravity insulting human sensibilities shall not be exhibited." It
also cited guidelines 2(ix) and 2(x), which aim to prevent derogatory
depictions of women.Indian courts have frequently held that sex and obscenity
are not always synonymous, and that categorising sex as essentially immoral,
obscene, or unattractive is incorrect. Furthermore, courts have developed a
" assessing the work as a whole criterion" " under which any
opinion about the film should be centred on the major subject of the film and
surveyed as a whole, not only on a handful of isolated sentences. In reality,
in Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon[3],
the court applied these two standards and authorised frontal nudity sequences
in Bandit Queen.Despite the fact that the movie lipstick is expected to contain
sexually triggering scenes and nudity, it should be allowed since, first and
foremost, sex and vulgarity are not synonymous. The presence of sexual scenes
in the film does not imply that it is offensive, because the overall goal of
the film is not to promote offensiveness. Arbitrating the film as a whole
reveals that it spreads the issues of women's rights and sexuality. How can a
film that won the Oxfam Best Film on Gender Equality Award be disrespectful to
women?
If the CBFC's concern was that the film
contains sexually explicit scenes, it might have given the film a 'A' rating
and restricted it to adults. This is the primary reason why a certification
system was envisioned in the first place. Such occurrences provide us with an opportunity
to address the long-delayed reorganisation of cinema censorship rules. The
censor board requires increased involvement from the film business and minimal
government authority. As previously stated, clause 2 gives the central
government the ability to issue "such bearings as it thinks proper setting
out the standards which will lead the authority equipped to provide
certificates under this Act in allowing films for open display."A cursory
examination of the criteria reveals why there are such harsh prohibitions or
restriction of films on a consistent basis.
The simple answer is that they are imprecise
and highly flexible, which breaks the firm foundation it should have and causes
it to bend for the needs of different people.
The following are the guidelines as they are
available on the CBFC website:
[4]Rule
2(i): Anti-social activities, such as viciousness, are not applauded or
legitimised.
Rule 2(iv): Ineffective or unnecessary scenes
of brutality... and scenarios that may have the effect of desensitising or
dehumanising humans are avoided.
Rule 2(xiii): No visuals or statements that
advance the public, are obstructionist, antagonistic to reasoning, or are
anti-national in nature are exhibited.
Similarly to how it is not indicated when an
act becomes futile or avoidable, terms such as anti-social and anti-national
attitude are not precisely defined and hence serve as recommendations. This
empowers the central board and the central government to act arbitrarily based
on their own interests and viewpoints. This, combined with the political nature
of appointments ranging from the very top chairman of the CBFC to members of
regional committees, means that the entire system of cinema censorship or
certification is heavily influenced by the ruling party's wishes and interests.
What constitutes 'anti-national' in the sense
of the politically influenced certifying authority will be subject to what
constitutes 'anti-national' in the sense of the politically influenced
certifying authority. A liberal chairman might not have prohibited the present
film as strictly as a rigorous chairman would. Because there are no objective
standards, reading the rules is dependent on the government's stories.
Sections 3(1) and 5(1) of the Cinematographic
Act state that the appointment of officials is solely at the discretion of the
central government, with no intervention from any other institution. Section
5(1) specifies that the central government may nominate to the regional offices
anyone who, in its opinion, is qualified to appraise the effect of films on the
public.Most of the time, the courts overrule CBFC members' bans on movies,
citing them as backward. Whether it's udta Punjab or Vishwaroopam, the pattern
is apparent.
This demonstrates a lack of grasp of the
court's doctrines and precedents.
Courts based on the same basis later lift the
ban, which has been common practise.
The
Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2018
This measure was introduced in parliament by
Shashi Tharoor. The law was proposed as a remedy to the censorship board's and
the central government's inappropriate directives and involvement. The bill
seeks to eradicate all forms of central government involvement in movie
censorship. The bill also asks to remove the term censorship and replace it
with the term certifying body because no one has the right to interfere with a
person's artistic freedom, but in order to warn the audience about the contents
of the movie, the certifying body can only give different certificates to the
movie.According to the bill, the censorship board will not have the authority
to ban or direct changes to a film unless it completely adheres to the
constraints outlined in article 19. (2). The bill also discusses standards for
how each film should be certified, and it repeals all provisions from the
original legislation that deal with censorship and the involvement of the
federal government.
To a greater extent, the law addresses the
issues of ambiguity and political influence in censorship boards. The absence
of central government engagement would violate a variety of politically
motivated moves.
CONCLUSION
A free society's eyes and ears are artists,
writers, playwrights, and filmmakers. They are the true lungs of a free society
because the intensity of their medium provides a much-needed break from the
monotony of everyday life. Their right to express themselves in a manner based
on their personal preferences is a fundamental right, just like everyone else's
freedom of speech and expression. Our democratic government, which is based on
the Indian constitution, guarantees the right of free speech and expression to
every citizen of the country, which includes artistic freedom of film makers,
and that privilege is not restricted on the outflow of perspectives that may be
appealing to standard idea.Difference is at the heart of democratic governance.
As a result, individuals who express views that are critical of winning social
reality are respectedplace in the constitutional hierarchy History demonstrates
that there is a difference in varied degrees.Background contributes to societal
evolution. Individuals who ask unanswered questions suspicions contribute to
the alteration of social norms. A democratic government has been constitutedin
recognition of their tenacity. Any attempt by the state to stifle free
expressionexpression of feelings and opinions should be avoided in the future.