The last couple of months have been very difficult for some filmmakers. They had to face the wrath of the Central Board of Film Certification for expressing certain thoughts through their films. Acting on it, actor-director Amol Palekar filed a petition in the Supreme Court questioning censorship practices. He had suggested changes in the guidelines for pre-censorship of films.
According to reports, Palekar's plea doesn't challenge the entire Cinematograph Act "but merely certain provisions thereof". The plea seeks to quash Section 4(1)(iii) that empowers the CBFC to carry out excisions amounting to pre-censorship, which is an unreasonable restriction. It also wants to declare the present CBFC incompetent to carry on functions under the said Act, besides quashing 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". And also, "to increase the categories for certification under Section 4(1) or 5A(1) considering the age group and commensurate sensibilities of the audience in mind."
In a statement, Palekar, said, “After about 47 years, the constitutional validity of provisions of this Act is being challenged. Usually producers or directors approach the judiciary to seek relief against 'a particular film' which is being denied of the certification. No one finds it necessary to hit the broader issues beyond their own specific/immediate reliefs. It's high time we proceed to reclaim our evaporating freedoms...."
On Monday, the writ petition against the CBFC filed by the actor-director was admitted by the Supreme Court. The bench comprising justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan heard the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the court’s intervention in revamping the CBFC’s guidelines.
The plea also stresses on the implementation of the recommendations of the Benegal Committee—headed by filmmaker Shyam Benegal—that was submitted in two parts last year.
Benegal thinks it is okay for Palekar to go ahead and file the plea, but he is still wondering what is happening to the report that the committee headed by him submitted last year. “The first part was submitted to the government in April last year (2016) and the second in October,” he says, adding, “I haven’t heard from the government yet, and I don’t know what to say.”
The recommendations suggested in the report, according to Benegal, are quite radical in nature. “Our report takes into account everything—the entire film and entertainment business, the guidelines to the CBFC, the Cinematograph Act. Now, it’s to the government to take a decision. In the meanwhile, Amol Palekar has also filed a plea and it’s okay,” he concluded.
From films like last year’s Udta Punjab, Dance of Democracy: Battle for Banaras to the recent Haraamkhor, Lipstick Under My Burkha, among others, all have had to battle the censor board.
Vani Tripathi Tikoo, former BJP national secretary and current CBFC member, said she is looking forward to the reforms in the old Cinematograph Act. She declares that she has taken a clear stand. “I haven’t seen the PIL by Mr Palekar as it is in the court, but what I have understood with the discussions is that no matter what, we have to amend the 1952 Cinematograph Act. Until the CBFC is bound by the redundant Act of 1952, it will be made a very contentious issue because the guidelines are very old, not progressive and they do not look at cinema that is being made in 2017,” she says.
As far as questions raised on the operative mechanism of the CBFC in the PIL by Palekar, Tikoo thinks it is an internal matter. She recalls the time when Leela Samson was the chairperson of the CBFC and how in her last year, she didn’t even call for a board meeting for a whole year. “That is like going against the constitution of the formation of the CBFC,” she remarks, obviously trying to save the government that has been allegedly accused of being too interfering in the creative process.
Last month, the Board had asked Dakxin Bajrange Chhara to remove the line “mann ki baat” from his yet-to-be released film Sameer, since it is the name of the prime minister’s radio show.
Personally, Tikoo says, nobody has the right to delete anybody’s creative work. “We have to only work as a certification body. But till the amendment of the Act doesn’t happen, we are bound by the regulations,” she says. However, she has hopes with the online certification that was started by the Ministry almost 10 days ago. “It would remove a lot of middle-men and touts, bringing a great deal of transparency.”
Just like Benegal, Tikoo, too, is clueless about the proceedings of the draft submitted by the Benegal Committee. “I wouldn’t know what is happening in Parliament. I know there’s a draft bill that is there for some time now, but when it will be raised and brought to the table I can’t say,” she says. She is not even sure at what stage the draft is, as far as the Ministry is concerned. “But the enhancement of ratings that is there in the draft (as per the Benegal report) can't be done until it is discussed on the table. It is not in our hands at all,” she rues.
And while the Ministry is taking its own time, the filmmakers are eagerly waiting for the draft to be taken into consideration and eventually implemented. During an interview with THE WEEK a couple of weeks back, Vikramaditya Motwane had said that once implemented, it will ease out a lot of processes.
Palekar’s plea is no less a hope. If nothing, it has pushed the plaguing issue into the limelight again.
Alankrita Srivastava, the director of Lipstick Under My Burkha, sees a ray of hope for the future with the recent plea. Her film was denied a release for being too “lady oriented” even as it was being applauded on the global stage. Srivastava sees a ray of hope for the future, thanks to the plea. “I stand with Mr Palekar in complete solidarity. I am not sure how much it will affect the status of my film. But as an artiste, a woman and as a filmmaker, the plea spells great hope for the future. We have to claim our freedom and this is a positive step in that direction,” she says.
