Bombay High Court cuts Censor Board to size, clears Udta Punjab with solitary snip
8:08 AM
Says Don't Be Over-Sensitive And Mindless; Tells Censors That Extreme Measures May Kill Creativity
Shibu Thomas (THE TIMES OF INDIA; June 14, 2016)
In a landmark order, the
Bombay high court on Monday cleared the release of the Hindi movie 'Udta
Punjab' with a solitary cut and a modified disclaimer. A divisiin
bench of Justice Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Justice Shalini
Phansalkar-Joshi laid down the law for the Central Board of Film
Certification, asking it to stop being sensitive in matters of art and curb its
instinct to suggest cuts in films “routinely“ and “mindlessly“. At the
same time, the court said “artistic freedom was not absolute“.
The HC said the scene in which actor Shahid Kapoor is seen urinating into the audience at a rock concert has to go --a cut Anurag Kashyap's Phantom Films, one of the producers, readily agreed to. The producers will also have to put in an extended disclaimer that acknowledges the government and police's fight against the drug menace, and that the filmmakers do not support use of drugs or use of expletives or bad language. In the original disclaimer, there was a reference to drugs coming in from Pakistan. In the new disclaimer finalized by the court, that reference has been deleted.
The court's orders have cleared the decks for the film's release on its scheduled date, June 17. The court has directed CBFC to issue an 'Adults' certificate to the film in 48 hours. A plea by the board's lawyer Advait Sethna to stay the verdict and make the filmmakers show the film once again to CBFC was rejected by HC, which asked the board to get rid of its “grandmother attitude“. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam and advocate Ameet Naik said investment to the tune of around Rs 30 crore had gone into the film's making and promotion. Arrangements were in place to release it in over 1,800 screens across India, which would be imperilled if the release was stayed.
The film that seeks to depict the drug menace in Punjab had been subjected to changes in 13 categories, including 11 categories of deletions that amounted to roughly 89 cuts. The cuts included abusive words in songs and dialogue, a scene of a man scratching his side and naming the dog in the movie Jackie Chain. CBFC had also wanted all references to Punjab and other cities deleted and references to “MLA“, “party“ worker, “Parliament“ and “election“ removed.“
The judges dictated the order for over three hours in the open court and reiterated that CBFC's role was not to censor films. “As a board of certification, CBFC is not empowered to censor films. If as per law the board is empowered to make changes or deletions then that power must be exercised consistently and in line with the Constitution and Supreme Court orders,“ said the HC. The court said while under the Constitution the CBFC had the power to seek cuts and modifications in films, the authorities should not put undue curbs or unreasonable restrictions. “Certification should be responsive to social changes. CBFC should not be over-sensitive in matters of art. The attempt should not be to discourage making of films and the creative process. Artistic expression is not to be curbed. CBFC should not interfere, unless creative freedom is abused,“ said the judges, adding, “Holding up certificates, suggesting cuts routinely will prove counter-productive.“
The HC said CBFC should remember it was dealing with a new generation of filmmakers who intend to experiment and compete with the best of international cinema in terms of not just technique but content. “To stop that abruptly by extreme measures may kill creativity. To interfere with works mindlessly will not be conducive to creativity in India and its growth. Interfering in their works again and again will downgrade their work and creativity and will have a disturbing effect in the long run. The authorities must strike a balance to ensure growth of the medium of films and to subserve larger public interest,“ the judges remarked. “Filmmakers of today are direct, aggressive and brutal in their works. They should not be treated harshly just because of this,“ the court added.
The judges, who had declined to view the movie but went through the script, said while they'd have been happier if the filmmakers had used better and refined language, they could not be compelled to used particular words. The young filmmakers would from experience realise it is not such abusive words that make a film a success, but its content. “Art must render obscenity so trivial that it doesn't affect people's minds or society,“ the court said. “Such a blanket order of deletion without any reference to the theme interferes with the creative freedom of the filmmaker,“ the judges said of the order to delete abusive words.
The court said while the board had demanded deleting references to Punjab, it had not sought removal of the word from the title. “The board should consider the film in its entirety. It is not permitted to pick out isolated scenes, lines from dialogues and read them out of context. It is up to the filmmaker to choose the setting, theme and story line. None can dictate to a filmmaker or a writer about what should be the content of the film,“ said the judges.
TIMES VIEW :
The high court verdict is a shot in the arm for creatve expression. The CBFC must be a certification board and not a censor. The Shyam Benegal-headed committee has recommended that CBFC should stop wielding the scissor and only give movies different classifications ¬ like suitable for plus 12 years of age or adults only. These reforms must be implemented immediately and the board must be de-politicised as a matter of priority
The HC said the scene in which actor Shahid Kapoor is seen urinating into the audience at a rock concert has to go --a cut Anurag Kashyap's Phantom Films, one of the producers, readily agreed to. The producers will also have to put in an extended disclaimer that acknowledges the government and police's fight against the drug menace, and that the filmmakers do not support use of drugs or use of expletives or bad language. In the original disclaimer, there was a reference to drugs coming in from Pakistan. In the new disclaimer finalized by the court, that reference has been deleted.
The court's orders have cleared the decks for the film's release on its scheduled date, June 17. The court has directed CBFC to issue an 'Adults' certificate to the film in 48 hours. A plea by the board's lawyer Advait Sethna to stay the verdict and make the filmmakers show the film once again to CBFC was rejected by HC, which asked the board to get rid of its “grandmother attitude“. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam and advocate Ameet Naik said investment to the tune of around Rs 30 crore had gone into the film's making and promotion. Arrangements were in place to release it in over 1,800 screens across India, which would be imperilled if the release was stayed.
The film that seeks to depict the drug menace in Punjab had been subjected to changes in 13 categories, including 11 categories of deletions that amounted to roughly 89 cuts. The cuts included abusive words in songs and dialogue, a scene of a man scratching his side and naming the dog in the movie Jackie Chain. CBFC had also wanted all references to Punjab and other cities deleted and references to “MLA“, “party“ worker, “Parliament“ and “election“ removed.“
The judges dictated the order for over three hours in the open court and reiterated that CBFC's role was not to censor films. “As a board of certification, CBFC is not empowered to censor films. If as per law the board is empowered to make changes or deletions then that power must be exercised consistently and in line with the Constitution and Supreme Court orders,“ said the HC. The court said while under the Constitution the CBFC had the power to seek cuts and modifications in films, the authorities should not put undue curbs or unreasonable restrictions. “Certification should be responsive to social changes. CBFC should not be over-sensitive in matters of art. The attempt should not be to discourage making of films and the creative process. Artistic expression is not to be curbed. CBFC should not interfere, unless creative freedom is abused,“ said the judges, adding, “Holding up certificates, suggesting cuts routinely will prove counter-productive.“
The HC said CBFC should remember it was dealing with a new generation of filmmakers who intend to experiment and compete with the best of international cinema in terms of not just technique but content. “To stop that abruptly by extreme measures may kill creativity. To interfere with works mindlessly will not be conducive to creativity in India and its growth. Interfering in their works again and again will downgrade their work and creativity and will have a disturbing effect in the long run. The authorities must strike a balance to ensure growth of the medium of films and to subserve larger public interest,“ the judges remarked. “Filmmakers of today are direct, aggressive and brutal in their works. They should not be treated harshly just because of this,“ the court added.
The judges, who had declined to view the movie but went through the script, said while they'd have been happier if the filmmakers had used better and refined language, they could not be compelled to used particular words. The young filmmakers would from experience realise it is not such abusive words that make a film a success, but its content. “Art must render obscenity so trivial that it doesn't affect people's minds or society,“ the court said. “Such a blanket order of deletion without any reference to the theme interferes with the creative freedom of the filmmaker,“ the judges said of the order to delete abusive words.
The court said while the board had demanded deleting references to Punjab, it had not sought removal of the word from the title. “The board should consider the film in its entirety. It is not permitted to pick out isolated scenes, lines from dialogues and read them out of context. It is up to the filmmaker to choose the setting, theme and story line. None can dictate to a filmmaker or a writer about what should be the content of the film,“ said the judges.
TIMES VIEW :
The high court verdict is a shot in the arm for creatve expression. The CBFC must be a certification board and not a censor. The Shyam Benegal-headed committee has recommended that CBFC should stop wielding the scissor and only give movies different classifications ¬ like suitable for plus 12 years of age or adults only. These reforms must be implemented immediately and the board must be de-politicised as a matter of priority
Mohar basu (BOMBAY TIMES; June 14, 2016)
On Monday, when the Bombay
High Court decreed in favour of Udta Punjab, there was a sense of
jubilation in the air. The makers heaved a sigh of relief as their film
wasn't meted out unfair treatment, at least, in the court of law. The
tussle has been the hardest for the producers as they risked losing big
money by standing up for the content they believe in.
After the Revising Committee slapped 89 cuts on the film for its explosive content dealing with drug abuse in Punjab and the rampant use of expletives, the makers were supposed to approach the FCAT (Film Certification Appellate Tribunal). But they decided against it after they realised that the absence of Justice Mahajan (FCAT member) could have delayed the film by a week. The Tribunal scheduled the screening for June 17, the day when the film was to release. In such a scenario, producer Anurag Kashyap was left with no option but to file a petition in the High Court challenging the Revising Committee's order.
Yesterday in the judgement, the High Court made some valid points like, “Udta Punjab is a movie depicting the drug menace based in a place. We can't randomly pick out words from dialogues and songs and raise objections. There is nothing in the script that questions or threatens India's integrity. There is no justification for cutting the 'Punjab' signboard. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must exercise its powers consistently in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. We must realise the importance of films as a medium of social change. The CBFC can't censor films.“
The petitioner had argued that 'Mere references, signboards of Punjab etc do not affect sovereignty and integrity of India', which the HC acknowledged and upheld. The industry welcomed the judgement as a breather from the autocratic ways of the CBFC.
Though Rajyavardhan Rathore (Minister of State for Information & Broadcasting) remained unavailable for comment, a source from his ministry told BT, “A couple of days ago, Union Minister Arjun Jaitley had reiterated the need for a revamped certification process. The work on that began on January 1 when the Ministry appointed Shyam Benegal to lead a panel and submit recommendations for changes. Their first report was comprehensive and solution-driven and the second report will be submitted soon. We are considering the recommendations seriously. The changes in the CBFC are a part of the government's agenda. Benegal's committee is only taking forward what was outlined by the Mudgal committee earlier. The government will proactively look into this.“
When asked if Udta Punjab was the catalyst, our source added, “Not at all. The government has its own fixed process and we have to adhere to it. Since the producers directly approached the HC, the matter was automatically fast tracked. But this film isn't a catalyst. The society is evolving and we realise the need to create a certification body that understands the fast-changing face of the modern world. Why blame the government for everything?“ When BT contacted CBFC Pahlaj Nihalani, he said, “On Sunday, the CBFC revised its decision on the film, passing it with an 'A' certificate, asking the producers for 13 cuts. If Anurag and his platoon want to fight against our order in court, so be it. We have done our job by sticking to the guidelines given to us. Now whether they want to go to the HC or FCAT is their call.“
Over the last few weeks, the censorship battle took a different colour. It wasn't just about one film anymore, as the industry came out in staunch support of Udta Punjab. On Sunday, Rajyavardhan Rathore had posted on his microblogging site, “The government is committed to bringing about a perceptible change for better in the CBFC very soon; certification only, not censorship..“
Nihalani echoes Rathore's views. As the CBFC chief, he has often been on the receiving end of scathing criticism, but it has never been this bad. This time around the CBFC's image has hit an all-time low after the support for the makers have been unanimous from all quarters. Reacting to it, Pahlaj said “The Act mentions that the Board has the power to suggest cuts when the content is not in sync with the listed guidelines. I don't have any personal vested interest in asking for the cuts. There is a rulebook and we follow it. We have passed movies with bold content also (like The Danish Girl). At CBFC, we are just following the procedure. Long before the Shyam Benegal committee was appointed, I had submitted my recommendations to the Ministry about the changes required in the CBFC. You want to stop censorship, amend the Cinematograph Act. Vilifying me won't change anything.“
At the time of going to press, the court proceedings were still going on.
----------------------------------After the Revising Committee slapped 89 cuts on the film for its explosive content dealing with drug abuse in Punjab and the rampant use of expletives, the makers were supposed to approach the FCAT (Film Certification Appellate Tribunal). But they decided against it after they realised that the absence of Justice Mahajan (FCAT member) could have delayed the film by a week. The Tribunal scheduled the screening for June 17, the day when the film was to release. In such a scenario, producer Anurag Kashyap was left with no option but to file a petition in the High Court challenging the Revising Committee's order.
Yesterday in the judgement, the High Court made some valid points like, “Udta Punjab is a movie depicting the drug menace based in a place. We can't randomly pick out words from dialogues and songs and raise objections. There is nothing in the script that questions or threatens India's integrity. There is no justification for cutting the 'Punjab' signboard. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) must exercise its powers consistently in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. We must realise the importance of films as a medium of social change. The CBFC can't censor films.“
The petitioner had argued that 'Mere references, signboards of Punjab etc do not affect sovereignty and integrity of India', which the HC acknowledged and upheld. The industry welcomed the judgement as a breather from the autocratic ways of the CBFC.
Though Rajyavardhan Rathore (Minister of State for Information & Broadcasting) remained unavailable for comment, a source from his ministry told BT, “A couple of days ago, Union Minister Arjun Jaitley had reiterated the need for a revamped certification process. The work on that began on January 1 when the Ministry appointed Shyam Benegal to lead a panel and submit recommendations for changes. Their first report was comprehensive and solution-driven and the second report will be submitted soon. We are considering the recommendations seriously. The changes in the CBFC are a part of the government's agenda. Benegal's committee is only taking forward what was outlined by the Mudgal committee earlier. The government will proactively look into this.“
When asked if Udta Punjab was the catalyst, our source added, “Not at all. The government has its own fixed process and we have to adhere to it. Since the producers directly approached the HC, the matter was automatically fast tracked. But this film isn't a catalyst. The society is evolving and we realise the need to create a certification body that understands the fast-changing face of the modern world. Why blame the government for everything?“ When BT contacted CBFC Pahlaj Nihalani, he said, “On Sunday, the CBFC revised its decision on the film, passing it with an 'A' certificate, asking the producers for 13 cuts. If Anurag and his platoon want to fight against our order in court, so be it. We have done our job by sticking to the guidelines given to us. Now whether they want to go to the HC or FCAT is their call.“
Over the last few weeks, the censorship battle took a different colour. It wasn't just about one film anymore, as the industry came out in staunch support of Udta Punjab. On Sunday, Rajyavardhan Rathore had posted on his microblogging site, “The government is committed to bringing about a perceptible change for better in the CBFC very soon; certification only, not censorship..“
Nihalani echoes Rathore's views. As the CBFC chief, he has often been on the receiving end of scathing criticism, but it has never been this bad. This time around the CBFC's image has hit an all-time low after the support for the makers have been unanimous from all quarters. Reacting to it, Pahlaj said “The Act mentions that the Board has the power to suggest cuts when the content is not in sync with the listed guidelines. I don't have any personal vested interest in asking for the cuts. There is a rulebook and we follow it. We have passed movies with bold content also (like The Danish Girl). At CBFC, we are just following the procedure. Long before the Shyam Benegal committee was appointed, I had submitted my recommendations to the Ministry about the changes required in the CBFC. You want to stop censorship, amend the Cinematograph Act. Vilifying me won't change anything.“
At the time of going to press, the court proceedings were still going on.
Bombay High Court clears Udta Punjab just in time for its June 17 release
Avinash Lohana (MUMBAI MIRROR; June 14, 2016)
After the Examining Committee (EC) of the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) recommended 89 cuts for the drug drama, Udta Punjab, referring it to the Revising Committee (RC) which after a screening presided over by CBFC Chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani asked for 13 cuts which would add up to 92, also directing the makers to drop all references to 'Punjab', the Bombay High Court on Monday cleared it with just one cut and three disclaimers.
Upholding the creative freedom of the makers and observing that though it's not an absolute right, it should not be curtailed unless abused, a division bench of Justices SC Dharmadhikari and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi directed the CBFC to issue an 'A' certificate by Wednesday so the film can release on schedule on Friday.
The only cut which the makers' lawyer volunteered to carry out before the court's direction could be recorded, shows a lead character urinating on a crowd. The makers tried to justify it saying it showed how deranged he had become because of drugs. The bench argued that there were other ways to depict the same. The disclaimers will state that the makers do not promote the use of drugs; that they do not promote use of expletives and cuss words; and the movie is not made with an intention to malign a particular state.
Referring to the 'Punjab' signpost, the court said it did not find anything in the script that suggested the sovereignty or integrity of the nation would be affected, the reason cited by the CBFC while seeking deletion. It further observed that the use of cuss words went with the story and the characters, and objections to words like 'election', 'MP' and 'Parliament' were wrong as they don't refer to any specific party or person.
The judgement comes as a relief to makers, Phantom Films and Balaji Motion Pictures, who had planned to approach the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) but were informed that the judge was on leave till June 16, a day before the film's scheduled release. They reportedly stood to lose almost Rs 1 crore a day if there was any delay which was why they decided to move court.
Does this victory make the Bombay High Court the new Censor Board? Shyam Benegal who is heading the revamp panel for the Board points out that the CBFC has three stages of certification: the EC, the RC and the Tribunal which has to be duly followed. "It is a democratic process and a very good one. Udta Punjab had to directly approach the HC because their release date was nearing. But usually the court comes as a final arbitrator," he asserts.
Ashoke Pandit, member of the CBFC, insists the verdict has broken the CBFC chief's arrogance and will be treated as a Bible in future. "People are arguing that the HC hasn't seen the film when all jury members had read the entire script, knew it scene by scene, referred to sequences in depth," he reveals.
Writer-director Vikram Bhatt who had to go to the FCAT with his Love Games after the EC asked for 18 cuts, was jubilant, "Today is our Independence Day. Udta Punjab is not just a film but a movement that has ended in the victory of democracy." His question to the government: Either the CBFC is out of control and the government is doing nothing about it or it is being controlled and the government is not telling us?
Vinay Tiwari, producer of Mohalla Assi, stuck for over two years is expecting to hear from the Board soon. "If there are unreasonable cuts, I will approach the Tribunal and, if need be, the High Court. The CBFC's job is to certify, not censor," he says.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment