In the wake of the SC verdict:
Will censorship now become autonomous

The recent judgement of the Supreme Court granting supremacy to the Appellate Tribunal of the Central Board of Film Certification, by declaring that the union government has no power to review its decision, is just what the doctor ordered for the film industry. The apex court has declared section 6 (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1981, which empowered the central government to recall any movie at any stage as unconstitutional. So what do our filmfolk have to say on it?...

NOT so long ago, Justice Mukhi of the Bombay High Court had struck down Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act in the case of Devendra Goel’s Ek Phool Do Mali. Thereafter this section has been challenged by a number of film producers in the South as well as in Mumbai, but the government managed to scrape through each time the cases came up, by withdrawing its defence.

The Division Bench comprising Justice VN Khare and Justice Variava said in their judgement, "The executive has to obey the judicial orders. Section 6 (1) of the Cinematograph Act is a travesty of the rule of law, which is the basic structure of the Constitution."

Dismissing an appeal by the central government, the bench said that once a film was cleared by an expert body like the CBFC or the Appellate Tribunal, who have considered the effect of the film on the public, it is the responsibility of the government to maintain law and order.

There could not have been a bigger slap in the face of the government which has always tried to control the film industry and strangle its creativity. It is because of this that the filmmakers should be more guarded against the central government trying to bring in another legislation to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, in order to retain its hold.

It is in this context that SCREEN sought the views of filmmakers on this historic judgement.

CBFC STILL NOT ENTIRELY AUTONOMOUS
Shyam Benegal

Says filmmaker Shyam Benegal, "The Supreme Court judgement striking down Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act is sensible. How can any government recall a film? With one hand it gives powers to the Central Board of Film Certification and the Appellate Tribunal to censor a film, and with the other, it seeks to take away their powers by exercising Section 6 of the Act. It means the censor board has no reason to exist. It also means the government does not trust the censor board. Earlier, the same Section 6 was struck down by the Bombay High Court. For some strange reason, filmmakers did not bother about it, when the same section was incorporated in the amended Cinematograph Act.

However, it doesn’t mean that the censor board has become entirely autonomous now, either. It has only reestablished its power which was eroded by the clause. Yet the government can still call the shots. The censor board has to be more accountable to the government. The board is constituted under the ministry of information and broadcasting. The government can hold greater powers. As far as the industry is concerned, there is now no fear of the government stopping a film."

Why pick on films alone?
Surinder Kapoor

Welcoming the Supreme Court judgement, Surinder Kapoor, president of the Film Producers Guild of India, said, "The film industry will not let the government bring in another legislation to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling and retain the powers of reviewing the order of the tribunal. This should be considered contempt of court. Once the censor board or appellate tribunal has passed the film, the government should not interfere with the ruling. It is ironic that the electronic media including satellite and cable television, which reaches inside people’s homes enjoys greater freedom than films shown in theatres.

Time we thought about self-censorship
Govind Nihalani

"First of all, let me make it clear that I am against any kind of censorship. The Supreme Court judgement, striking down Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, is most welcome. It is indeed a progressive judgement.

This section has been hanging like the proverbial sword over our heads for quite a while now. The government had retained the power to recall a movie under the guise of law and order, so that it can ban or suspend a film. This is despite the fact that it has sufficient safeguards under the censor guidelines to either ban a movie or remove unwanted scenes or shots. The government has been misusing its powers under the section.

My Tamas, for instance, was passed by the censors but the government did not want it to be passed. They felt the film had strong political content. The matter went to the court. I should be thankful to Soli Sohrabji, who offered his services free of charge to fight the case, because he believed in the freedom of speech. He appeared in the Supreme Court and defended my case. In other words the government doesn’t want films with strong political content, which threatens to undermine it.

I strongly feel it’s time the filmmakers sat together and worked out a formula for self-censorship as it exists in the USA. Initially, it may have some teething troubles. But eventually, when the system settles down, the gradation of films will become entirely impartial. What’s happening now is that the members of the censor board are political appointees. The judgement and interpretations of the guidelines are affected and split along party lines. The members often sing the tune of the political party in power.

Good Bye, Super-Censors
Amit Khanna

Says Amit Khanna, "The film industry has always been unsure whether the government will ban a film even after it gets the mandatory clearance from the censors or tribunal. The latest Supreme Court ruling should help remove such a fear from filmmakers minds once and for all. Let’s hope with this ruling, we’ve seen the end of the government behaving like super-censors."

MSM Desai