Film industry set to witness changes

Team DCF | Mumbai

The Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Prakash Javadekar unveiled the new logo and certificate design of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on 31 August 2019 as part of a special interaction between the Indian film industry and CBFC board members. The event was organised by the CBFC in Mumbai and in attendance were Kangana Ranaut, Satish Kaushik, Madhur Bhandarkar, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Boney Kapoor, Ekta Kapoor, Sanjay Khan, Ramesh Sippy, Anupama Chopra, Subhash Ghai, Kunal Kohli, Prahlad Kakkar, Kiran Shantaram, Sudhir Mishra, Atul Kasbekar, Vidya Balan and Siddharth Roy Kapur from the film fraternity. Also present were I&B Secretary Amit Khare and CBFC Chairman Prasoon Joshi.

Addressing the guests, Chief Guest Prakash Javadekar said the introduction of QR code in the new certificate design is in sync with the ever-changing digital world and it s step towards greater transparency and providing richer information to film-makers. The Minister also congratulated CBFC for the efficient discharge of its functions. Mr Javadekar added, "When cable television and later DTH were introduced, people never imagined that prices of TV channels could be so low but it will soon happen after the TRAI order. These days due to social media, with just one or two shows, it becomes clear whether a film will succeed or not."

Noting the importance of entertainment in present-day life, the Minister made an appeal to all television producers to use technology for the visually-impaired people so they understand films better. He said, "Such technology can be used at a cost of 1 or 2 lakh rupees per film. Similarly, private news channels should also try to bring out at least one bulletin per week for deaf people."

Speaking about the upcoming golden jubilee edition of International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa, Mr Javadekar said, "IFFI this year will be very special. The theme of IFFI 2019 is Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat and the opening and closing ceremonies will reflect the theme. I appeal everyone to come and attend. The honourable Prime Minister has said film is an industry too and we are trying to have a Film Business Summit which will look into the business aspect of films. Film Bazaar is also planned to be organized in Mumbai to look into business promotion, technology diffusion and export promotion."

The government is now amending the Cinematograph Act, after changing the Copyright Act, to curb piracy and protect rights of artists. The Minister invited suggestions and recommendations from the audience and other stakeholders regarding certification and regulation of online content.

Commenting on the new design of the CBFC certificate, CBFC Chariman Prasoon Joshi stated, "I believe the design should reflect the contemporary digital world and leverage the ease that technology has brought in our work processes. The design change is not cosmetic, it is extremely functional and underlines the CBFC’s positive value-added approach."

Mr Joshi highlighted the various initiatives taken by CBFC during the last few years for the benefit of the film industry. He said that the Board has been playing an active and positive role in taking forward the issues of the industry by bringing in greater transparency and smoother processes. Today, film-makers can find every detail about any film on the CBFC website. The Animal Welfare Board of India issues have been simplified. Consultative approach has resulted in a more collaborative process. He said, "if we are anchored in collective human good, there is no way we will not be able to find solutions through a dialogic approach." Mr Joshi was extremely appreciative of his Board members who have been instrumental in taking this forward. The board comprises Narendra Kohli, Vani Tripathi Tikoo, Naresh Chander Lal, Neil Herbert Nongkynrih, Vidya Balan, Waman Kendre, Vivek Agnihotri, Gautami Tadimalla, T S Nagabharana, Jeevitha Rajasekhar, Ramesh Patange and Mihir Bhuta.

Speaking about the evolution of art, Mr Joshi quipped, "art used to be participative and built on the idea of cocreation. However, condescension entered into the field later with the performer being active and the audience passive. Technology has now introduced a new reality of active performer and active audience, giving voice to the people. When art goes out, the intent of the artist is sometimes not understood, due to different vantage points of people and this necessitates some extra effort to make oneself understood."

Talking about culture the Chairman said, "cultural symbols such as language are part of the collective subconscious and their choice can only be decided collectively. Trust between the audience and creative people is paramount. If trust in artists is lost, it will have a harmful effect on our world. There can only be dialogue, not diktat, when it comes to cultural expression and this is the approach adopted by the CBFC. It is important to listen to the murmurs in society to be sensitive to the disadvantaged." He also highlighted the need to educate citizens about the meaning of various film ratings. 

The new design is futuristic in its approach and in sync with the fast-evolving digital world. It is also interactive in its design sensibility where by scanning the QR code, more information on the certificate can be obtained online. Prasoon Joshi himself has conceptualised the new look of the certificate, designed by Rohit Devgun with technical support from NSDL.

On the occasion CBFC Mumbai Regional Officer Tushar Karmakar presented an overview of the recent activities, initiatives and achievements of the board such as E-Cinepramaan - the online film certification system of CBFC - initiated by the-then I&B Minister in March 2017 to promote transparency and ease of doing business. Frequent meetings with members of the industry at different forums and creating opportunities for the film fraternity and the government representatives to meet and interact is also a step in this direction. He stated the Board's approach has led to improved mutual understanding and appreciation by the film fraternity.

New Censorship Dimensions

Films have always been closely associated with Freedom. But, Freedom comes with riders. One's freedom cannot hurt another. Also, the issue of curbs being ‘unequally distributed,” across media and hence violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that guarantees Equality is of topical importance. Actor-filmmaker Amol Palekar’s Public Interest Litigation challenged the ‘pre-censorship’ of films and, in particular, the provisions of the law in question.
The PIL challenged the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 which, in turn, impose pre-censorship on the freedom of speech and expression of the artistes as well as the audience. The issue isn’t a new one.

In the petition, that earned populist accolades from across the nation, Palekar touches upon a brand new area and one that needs urgent attention. The petitioner contended,in the age of internet and social media, the existing set of rules providing for pre-censorship of films have to undergo change. Also, filmmakers across the nation with the media close on its heels have been screaming out that the Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) is “not a Censor Board but a Certifying Board” and allege they have been misusing their powers.

Seeking a revamp of the Cinematography Act, 1952 and the Censor Board, Palekar said the contents uploaded on social media are free from pre-censorship but those very things attract alternation, deletion or cuts when it comes to films. “When content on television and internet is free of censorship, the same content being altered, cut or deleted before being shown in a cinema hall is an attack on our right to equality,” read the petition calling for a change in rules in the present day.

“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,” Palekar said.

The Supreme Court has, in response, issued notices to the Centre and CBFC asking them both to file replies to the plea. That is being perceived, in itself, as a win of sorts as the moot issues will now come to fore and be examined legally, once again.

There are, primarily, two issues in question being examined here. One, being the role, extent and jurisdiction of CBFC in certifying films and second being filmmakers’ Right to Equality being flouted owing to lack of censorship in screening and airing of content across online fora.

Firstly, it’s vital to understand the role of CBFC, which is a body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Section 3 of the same, titled ‘Board of Film Censors’ provides details of the constitution of the Board, which shall consist of a Chairman and not less than twelve and not more than twenty five other members appointed by the Central Government. That it’s a Censor Board is a given through the very Act from which it derives legitimacy.

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 prescribed all movies aimed at “public exhibition” will be first examined by the CBFC. The Board can ask for parts of the movie to be cut or removed before showcasing it in public in case 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”.

CBFC’s power to censor was justified by the Supreme Court when it said the CBFC had the right to ask for cuts while certifying a film. It was decided by the Supreme Court, in K.A. Abbas versus Union of India, in September 1970. The CBFC had asked for certain scenes to be cut in Abbas’ documentary ‘A Tale of Four Cities’. The award-winning filmmaker moved the Supreme Court saying the cuts amounted to a violation of his “freedom of expression.”

The court had then approved of censorship and noted in its judgement, “Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good.”

It said films were a powerful media and had greater impact than books. It ruled that censorship, including cutting parts of movies before public release, was valid under the Constitution.It also ruled that in the absence of any self-regulatory organization that could suggest or ask for cuts in films, it was up to the government-appointed CBFC to do so. So, the issue of the authority of CBFC to censor and ask for cuts in films too has been tackled in a precedent.

Television, which Amol Palekar moots is beyond the reach of CBFC and censorship, was separated from radio only later in 1976. In fact, national telecasts were introduced in 1982 and in the same year, colour TV was introduced in the Indian market. Indian small screen programming started off in the early 1980s: A good decade after the Supreme Court judgement on censorship.

Now, consider the inception of the second player – who went on to become the largest and the most dynamic in the media industry – the Internet. The history of the Internet in India began with the launch of the Educational Research Network (ERNET) in 1986. And, the first publicly available internet service in India was launched by state-owned Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) on August 14 1995.YouTube, in particular, which operates beyond the reach of CBFC and censorship in India is an American video-sharing website created by three former PayPal employees – Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim – only in February 2005. YouTube was launched in India in 2008.

It was an Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship headed by G.D. Khosla, a former Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court appointed on March 28, 1968 which submitted its report on July 26, 1969 and analysed very many provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1983 (in supersession of the Rules of 1958), and the censorship guidelines, framed by the Government of India on December 6, 1991.

Fundamentally, the Khosla report envisaged an “independent and autonomous Board of Film Censors”. It urged repeatedly that the censorship code be drawn up by the Board itself and not by the government. The code, it then suggested,was a diktat by the government, which also acted as the supreme authority for its enforcement.

In the absence of an alternative authority to censor, which, in itself, is not being questioned or refuted,the Supreme Court judgement of 1970 in the K.A. Abbas case, ruled that the government-appointed CBFC was the only available option. But, that was then.

More recently are the recommendations of the committee led by Shyam Benegal set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to look into revamping the Censor Board.

The need for law to be in sync with social transformation is felt by the film industry more now than ever. Amol Palekar’s PIL provides the perfect platform to the Supreme Court to re-examine the legislation and provide directions to the Centre and authorities to tweak the law, once again, to match the need of the moment. But, it remains to be seen if the Centre and its subjects are content with the directives passed.

In its display of judicial activism, while upholding reasonable restrictions and the need for censorship to maintain public order, decency and morality, the Supreme Court could well pass an order to expand the Censor Board or any other independent authority/body’s reach and bring Television and the Internet also within its ambit and not nip or trim censorship as may be expected, sending everyone in a tizzy. The Supreme Court’s recent order on Bars along Highways, a case in point, sent states across the nation and its people scurrying for cover and ‘de-notifying’ highways only to evade the reach of law. Time will tell!